Radical Honoursty Culture Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party CommonSism: Common Sense Guerrylla Laws for a Sustainable Commons AEquilibriaex: balanced Eco/Anthropocentric law www.guerrylla -law.co.nr
16 April 2013 18th Commonwealth Law Conference CLC 2013: Capetown South Africa Email: email@example.com CC: SA Law Societies & Bar Assoc’s
Commonwealth Lawyers Association 17 Russell Square, London, WC1B 5DR, UK Tel: +44 (0)207 862 8824 Email : firstname.lastname@example.org
CC: Keynote Speakers1 & Invited Speakers2 Dear Commonwealth Law Society Secretariat, Commonwealth Law Conference endorses African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurists demand to be the Masters of SA‟s Alice in Wonderland Legal Tyranny: “„Transformation‟ (and „reconciliation‟) does not even require to be defined (by the African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Masters).” - Justice Mogoeng Apartheid‟s Legal Tyranny of „vague and ambiguous‟ definitions: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mandela and the ANC accused Apartheid for being a legal tyranny, for providing definitions for specific legal terms, which were ‘vague and ambiguous’3. Navi Pillay, c/o UN High Comm HR; Justice Kate O’Regan: c/o: Corruption Watch; Lord Judge: Lord Chief Justice c/o: Secretary of State: Chris Grayling & Ministry of Justice 2 Judge James L. Kateka: Int’l Tribunal for the Law of the Sea || Don Deya: The Centre for Citizens Participation on the African Union || Babajide Ogundipe: Sofunde Osakwe Ogundipe & Belgore || Judge Sophia Wambura: The Tanzanian Women Judges Association & Education International || Simon Davenport QC, James Dingemans QC, Thomas Roe, 3 Harescourt ||Albert Kamunde Esq: Albert Kamunde & Co Advocates || Dr Nechi Ezeako: Odade Consulting || Nene Amegatcher: Ghana Bar Association || Peter Leon: Webber Wentzel || Miannaya Essien SAN: Principles Law || Lady Katya Lester: c/o Lord Lester of Herne Hill || Piet Faber: World Services Group || Mark Guthrie: Tooks Chambers ||David J McQuoid-Mason: Street Law SA || Baroness Ruth Deech: Bar Standards Board || Charles Flint QC: Blackstone Chambers ||Vinayak Sri Ram LLB LLM: Tan Rajah & Cheah ||Max du Plessis: Doughty Street ||Nicole Fritz: S Africa Litigation Centre || Hannah Kinch: Young Barristers Comm Bar Council ||Justice John Alexander Logan: Queensland Bar Assoc || Dr Peter Slinn: SOAS || Fiona McLeod S.C.: Victoria Bar || Maura McGowan QC: 2 Bedford Row ||Catherine Warburton: Imbewu Sustainability Legal Specialists || Sir Declan Morgan: NIJAC: N. Ireland Judicial App Comm. 3 Truth and Reconciliation Report: Vol I. page 30; para 26; 27 ; page 32 para 32; page 38, para 59; Vol II; page 274, para 453 1
PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539 * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954
Apartheid was a ‘vague and ambiguous’ legal tyranny; the new South Africa is a ‘no definitions whatsoever, not even vague and ambiguous definition’ legal tyranny. For the past ten years I have requested Archbishop Tutu, Nelson Mandela, FW de Klerk, the ANC and Anti-Apartheid Movement to provide a clear legal definition for the term ‘reconciliation’. I have been ignored and refused. Justice Mogoeng’s has ordered the Concourt registrar to refuse to process my application to the Constitutional Court, regarding South Africa’s TRC Fraud failure to provide clear cultural definitions for their meaning of ‘reconciliation’.
Alice in Wonderland Legal Tyranny: Who is to be Master?: “I don't know what you mean by „glory,‟” Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!‟” “But „glory‟ doesn't mean „a nice knock-down argument‟,” Alice objected. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master— that's all. .. Impenetrability! That's what I say!” -- Humpty Dumpty discussing semantics with Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass (1872)4
In Britain this passage was used by Lord Atkin in his dissenting judgement to protest about the distortion of a statute by the majority of the House of Lords, in the landmark case of Liversidge v. Anderson (1942)5.6 It has also become a popular citation in United States legal opinions, appearing in 250 judicial decisions in the Westlaw database as of April 19, 2008, including two Supreme Court cases (TVA v. Hill7 and Zschernig v. Miller8).9
African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurists demand to be the Masters of SA‟s Alice in Wonderland Legal Tyranny:
F. R. Palmer, Semantics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn., 1981), ISBN 0-521-28376-0, p. 8. Liversidge v Anderson  AC 206 is an important and landmark case in English law which concerned the relationship between the courts and the state, and in particular the assistance that the judiciary should give to the executive in times of national emergency. It concerns civil liberties and the separation of powers. Both the majority and dissenting judgments in the case have been cited as persuasive precedent by various countries of the Commonwealth of Nations. 6 Lewis, G. (1999). Lord Atkin. London: Butterworths. p. 138. ISBN 1-84113-057-5. 7 Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill et al., or TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978) 8 Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968) 9 Martin H. Redish and Matthew B. Arnould, "Judicial review, constitutional interpretation: proposing a 'Controlled Activism' alternative", Florida Law Review, vol. 64 (6), (2012), p. 1513. 4 5
Please find attached for your records and information:
12 April 2013 Letter to Judicial Service Commission: The Judicial Service Commission’s ‘transformation’ debate and Izak Smuts resignation is a red herring, obscuring the JSC’s ‘transformation’ agenda to (i) censor the Fraud and Failures of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence; while (ii) simply transforming South Africa’s Jurisprudence from a European Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric flavour to an African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric flavour.
Sincere Consumer Orientated Perspective to Juristic Transformation:  SA’s current system of Jurisprudence is Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric. Patriarchy: A system of society or government, is Patriarchal to the extent that it regulates (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, culture, ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts; for the (c) almost exclusive benefit of violent Anthropocentric humans and corporations.  A Credible Judicial System for Citizens and Nature is one such as the Mosuo’s, who have no rape, no murder, no suicide, no prisons, no unemployed, no homeless. If illiterate peasant women are capable of regulating the relations between nature, humans and animals, so simply that they result in a society with no rape, no murder, no suicide, no unemployed, no homeless; why are Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric lawyers with Ph.D’s and seven years of university education incapable of the same results? Because South Africa’s legislators and jurists all endorse the Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric jurisprudence recipe of breeding and consumption wars, for resource scarcity and conflict creation, and their profits!?  Fraud of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence: Primary Beneficiaries: Anthropocentric males and corporations; Primary Losers: Non-Anthropocentric humans and nature.  Transforming a system of Jurisprudence from Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric to Æquilibriaex: equal & balanced Eco/Anthropocentric law.  Other Examples of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Transformations to Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence: (i) Example of the Application of Aequilibriaex Principles, from a submission to the Military Judge of the US Army First Judicial Court, Ft. Meade in the matter of United States v. Bradley Manning; (ii) New Zealand, Ecuador, Bolivia and US Counties grant Nature Rights; (iii) Pennsylvania judge rules that corporations are not people.
14 April 2013 Letter to William Saunderson-Meyer: SA Legal Society Corruption: SA’s Legal Corruption (denial of Legal Representation and access to courts to RH culture) is endorsed by SA Political Parties, Media Editors, International Bar Association, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, SA Judicial Service Commission, Tutu, Mandela & De Klerk.
 Concourt: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v. Afriforum, et al: Afriforum v. Malema et al: Equality Court (07-2010 EQ JHB) to & Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA 815/11):
Concourt Justice’s TRC Fraud Corruption
Denied Cultural Legal Representation: SA Bar Ass’s & Law Societies
Concourt Justice’s TRC Fraud Corruption Endorsed by SA Media, CRL Rights Commission, IBA, Human Rights Watch & Amnesty International, Judicial Service Commission, Afriforum, TAU-SA, ANC, Tutu, Mandela and De Klerk, Tutu and Templeton Prize Judges
 General Systemic Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Legal Corruption:
In Chief Justice denies ‘reverse racism’10, Leila Samodien reports on the statements made by Justice Mogoeng at the 18th Commonwealth Law Conference: Justice Mogoeng said the question of whether there was a need to transform the country‟s judiciary “doesn‟t require a debate”. “Transformation does not even require to be defined. We know what the problem was,” he said. “We‟ve got to address it, and address it responsibly. And I can‟t imagine the JSC going about its business in an irresponsible and reckless manner.”
Do the Commonwealth Lawyers Association endorse the African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurists demand to be the Masters of SA‟s Alice in Wonderland Legal Tyranny? Does CLA believe SA citizens are entitled to clear and succinct definitions for the legal terms of ‘reconciliation’ and ‘transformation’; from our African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurist masters? Or, don’t you hold African Patriarch masters to the same standards as Boer Patriarch Masters? When can we expect you to release a statement, clarifying your position? Dated at George, South Africa: 16 April 2013
Lara Johnstone Member: Radical Honesty Culture Founder: Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party; CommonSism; Æquilibriæx Encl.
Radical Honoursty Culture Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party CommonSism: Common Sense Guerrylla Laws for a Sustainable Commons AEquilibriaex: balanced Eco/Anthropocentric law www.guerrylla -law.co.nr
12 April 2013 Judicial Service Commission c/o: Secretary: Mr Sello Chiloane The Constitutional Court, Constitutional Hill, Braamfontein, Johannesburg Tel: 011 838 2010 / 2022. Fax: 086 649 0944
Smuts, Izak Jacobus SC Equity House Chambers, 101 High Street, Grahamstown Tel: 046 622 2297 Cell 082 553 9848 Fax: 046 622 9880 E: email@example.com
CC: SA Bar Associations CC: SA Law Societies
CC: SA Political Parties CC: SA Media Editors
Dear Judicial Service Commission Members & SC Izak Smuts, The Judicial Service Commission‟s „transformation‟ debate and Izak Smuts resignation is a red herring, obscuring the JSC‟s „transformation‟ agenda to (i) censor the Fraud and Failures of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence; while (ii) simply transforming South Africa‟s Jurisprudence from a European Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric flavour to an African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric flavour. (Ref: White Men Can't Judge1; JSC in talks on transformation2; JSC's Izak Smuts resigns after transformation row3; Why I'm resigning from the JSC - Izak Smuts4.) A Swahili saying predicts that ―When two elephants fight, the grass suffers; and, when the same two elephants make love, the grass also suffers.‖ When the patriarchal Capitalist and Communist Cold War elephants, and their ANC and Apartheid baby elephants, fought, or pretended to make TRC love; the ignorant South African citizens rights, nature, animals and the environment‘s rights were trampled. http://www.citypress.co.za/news/white-men-cant-judge/ http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/JSC-in-talks-on-transformation-20130408 3 http://mg.co.za/article/2013-04-12-izak-smuts-resigns-after-transformation-row 4 http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=369581&sn=Detail&pid=71616 1 2
PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539 * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954
Similarly when the European Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurists fight the African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurists, the Failures of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence is trampled, silenced and censored; and so the ignorant South African consumers of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence continue to endorse their own trampling, by being emotionally blackmailed to believe that one of these Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Elephants has their citizens interests at heart. Nothing could be further from the truth. In this alleged ‗transformation‘ dispute (like all other ‗transformation‘ disputes, between the Eurocentric and Africanist Jurists, or Politicians, or Corporatists, all of whom endorse Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence); there is no question whatsoever as to the credibility of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric jurisprudence whatsoever; only which Patriarchal elephant is to be the profiteer! This ‗transformation‘ dispute has absolutely nothing to do with significantly ‗transforming‘ South Africa‘s system of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence benefiting the Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric elite; to a Credible system of Jurisprudence, based upon the results of that system, benefiting the consumers of the system: South African citizens, and the parties providing the ecological resources which are the foundation of all constitutional rights. Try reading the Constitution while holding your breath, and tell me which is more important, the Constitution, or the ecological resources that underpin it? Any debate about transformation, must first (a) identify what the current status of the system is, (b) then identify its strong points and its weak points, that improve/reduce its credibility; and (c) finally identify how to transform its weak points to strengthen them to improve its credibility, with the consumers of the system. When identifying the ‗credible‘ strong points, those seeking to transform the system, should ask what is ‗credible‘ in the experience of the consumer of that particular system, not in the eyes, of the controllers of the system. Sincere Consumer Orientated Perspective to Juristic Transformation: 
SA‘s current system of Jurisprudence: Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric.
 Credible Strong Points for Consumers: Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric ‗Breeding War‘, ‗Consumption War‘ and ‗Corporate Personhood‘ Jurisprudence‘s primary beneficiaries are Anthropocentric males and corporations.  Failures/Weak Points for Consumers: Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric ‗Breeding War‘, ‗Consumption War‘ and ‗Corporate Personhood‘ Jurisprudence‘s primary losers are non-Anthropocentric humans and nature. 2
Transform Weak Points to strengthen them.
SA current system of Jurisprudence: Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric. ―The basic idea is that all human societies face roughly the same problems, namely how do disputes get resolved and rights enforced. They have solved them in an interesting variety of ways and you can learn something from studying the different ways different societies have solved things. I like to claim that Iceland shows that the American legal system is a mere thousand years behind the cutting edge of legal technology, since their legal system had a simple feature, which I argue would improve ours.‖ - David Friedman, Legal Systems Very Different From Ours5. ―As any cynic will confirm, money and law have a lot in common. But their ties run even deeper than most suspect. Money and law had similar origins: both arose spontaneously out of the undirected actions of individuals seeking common standards for mutual coordination. Money and law developed in parallel fashion, too: medieval Europeans enjoyed competition in currencies and legal systems until monarchies took over both fields. And state monopolies in money and law now present common hazards: they are imposed by fiat, inefficiently operated, and (as the cynics point out) jointly corrupting.‖ – Tom Bell, Policycentric Law6
 SA‘s Jurisprudence system is Patriarchal and AnthroCorpocentric to the extent that it regulates (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, culture, ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts; for the almost exclusively benefit of Anthropocentric males and corporations.  Put differently: SA‘s Jurisprudence system is Patriarchal to the extent of its (a) failure to provide automatic legal personhood and rights to nature and animal and plant species; (b) disregard for the objective and scientific carrying capacity truth of the laws of nature/ecology; and (c) disregard for the laws of human nature; when they contradict the AnthroCorpocentric – breeding and consumption war – objectives of the holders of subjective AnthroCorpocentric Truth. 
What is Patriarchy?: War Against Nature & Women: Overview:
Friedman, David (2009); Friedman, David (March 1979) Bell, Tom (Winter 1991/2): Polycentric Law; Humane Studies Review, Volume 7, Number 1 http://osf1.gmu.edu/~ihs/w91issues.html 5 6
―Civilization, very fundamentally, is the history of the domination of nature and of women‖ – Primitivist, John Zerzan in Patriarchy, Civilization, and the Origins of Gender7
[4.1] A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. [4.2] A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it. [4.3] A system of society or government, is Patriarchal to the extent that it regulates (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, culture, ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts; for the (c) almost exclusive benefit of violent Anthropocentric humans and corporations.  Patriarchal societies/cultures occur where men suffer from fragile ego's and are incapable of resolving issues related to their masculinity, by means of logic and reason. Put differently, they do not want to take control of their penis, either physically, by breeding below carrying capacity, or psychologically, by consuming below carrying capacity (social status symbols which psychologically are equivalent to their belief in an extension of their penis/virility). A patriarchal culture‘s status symbols are related to their phallic-identity breeding war and consumption wars, where women and nature are sexualized as objects for plunder, with the final status symbol of superiority being physical violence.  Capitalism and Communism are simply two different battalions in Patriarchal Civilization‘s War (a) against nature, (b) for nature‘s resources, (c) against indigenous ‗Leaver‘ people‘s, (d) against Leaver Pagan and environmentally based religions, (e) against Ecological Leaver Consciousness, (f) against Gender Balanced environmentally sustainable cultures such as the Mosuo, etc.  A gender balanced culture based on logic and reason concludes that we live on a finite resource earth, and hence if we wish to avoid conflict from resource scarcity, then we must consume and reproduce at a level below carrying capacity. Put differently we do not have the right to ‗fuck‘ and ‗consume‘ to our hearts content. No patriarchal culture on planet earth has ever been based on logic and reason and required their tribe to breed and consume below carrying capacity. In a gender balanced culture the ultimate status symbols are honesty, honour, integrity, as values which co-create problem solving. For example: the Gender Balanced Mosuo culture in South West China have no police, no courts, no prison guards, no psychiatrists, no homeless, no mentally ill, no millionaires, no prisons, no mental institutions, no murder, no rape, no suicide! Their gender balanced cultural ‗logic and reason‘ foundation is built upon the premise of procreating and consuming below carrying capacity. John Zerzan: Patriarchy, Civilization, And The Origins Of Gender http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/john-zerzan-patriarchy-civilization-and-the-origins-of-gender 7
 To test whether a man or woman consciously or unconsciously endorse Patriarchal violent problem solving or rule of law/reason and logic (root cause) problem solving, ask them whether they procreate and consume below carrying capacity. If they do, they ‗practice what they preach‘ in terms of their support for rule of law/reason and logic. If they consume or procreate above carrying capacity, they may verbally pretend to support ‗reason and logic‘, but in terms of their actions and lifestyle, they physically support – consciously or unconsciously – patriarchy‘s preference for problem solving: violence! Whether it is the violence of individuals, tribes, or the AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence‘s police, courts, and prisons.  Colonialism is a product and symptom of Patriarchy‘s addiction to breeding and consumption wars. Colonialism, whether it is the colonialism of Europeans conquering African tribes, or the colonialism of African tribes who conquered other African tribes, or the colonialism of both Europeans and Africans who conquered the gender balanced Bushmen tribes.  All Colonialism, whether it resulted from the conquering wars of Columbus, Van Riebeeck, Shaka Zulu, or Mohammed, etc; were and are, a product and symptom of Patriarchy.  A patriarchal society, or a society which does not address the causes of masculine insecurity, cannot and will not ever be sustainable. Any ideology, whether political or religious, founded upon masculine insecurity (patriarchy) will result in breeding and consumption war concepts of power and domination (to provide insecure males with social/psychological penis extension status symbols, their fragile ego's lack).  Consumption wars require exponential expropriation of land, natural resources and knowledge. Breeding wars require a war against sustainable consciousness (ecological and political balance between all cultures, religions and races) to enable the production of surplus populations whose energies can be manipulated for the benefit of those managing the factory farming war economy racket. Colonialism is a symptom of Patriarchy‘s addiction to breeding and consumption wars; i.e. consuming above carrying capacity, and then using the surplus population as cannon fodder to conquer another culture‘s resources.
Credible Judicial System for Citizens and Nature 
What is a „Credible‟ Judicial System:
[13.1] A ‗credible‘ judicial system – like the gender balanced Mosuo in South West China who have no rape (not even a word in their language for rape, because it does not exist), no murder, no suicide and no unemployment; – is one which accurately applies the relevant natural or scientific laws, to attain a specific related required result of inter-human and intra-species harmony and balance; i.e. 5
the laws of nature/ecology, recognizing that a healthy ecological environment, with due regard for regulating human procreation and resource utilization behaviour in accordance with the carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights; and
the laws of human nature; where the relevant disputing parties cultural, religious, and ideological laws of human nature8, are applied to achieve the greatest possible level of intra-species harmony and balance.
Anders Breivik and Carlos the Jackal were ‗credible‘ bomb making terrorists, in the sense of accurately following the recipe‘ for the laws of bomb-making and detonation.
A chef who wants to make a Crème brûlée, is not going to have a ‗credible‘ Crème brûlée, if he used the ingredients and recipe – i.e. cooking laws -- for road kill stew.
[13.3] South Africa‘s System of Jurisprudence is AnthroCorpocentric – the Patriarchal Corporatocracy‘s Anthropocentric Flat Earth jurisprudence – which is not credible, because among others – it: A.
Ignores the laws of nature/ecology reality that the Earth is NOT FLAT, and that resources are not infinite. Although a majority of the West‘s problems crime, violence, unemployment, poverty, inflation, food shortages, political instability, vanishing species, garbage and pollution urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, energy and non-renewable resources (NNR) depletion are a consequence of overpopulation and overconsumption inducing scarcity, American jurisprudence fails to legally (a) define the difference between sustainable and unsustainable procreation and consumption behaviour; and (b) provide legal rights to sustainable practices, and legal penalties to unsustainable individuals, corporations and organisations.
Ignores the laws of human nature; by discriminating against culture‘s 9 and sub-cultures10 whose members practice brutal honesty, self sufficiency, personal responsibility, transparency and commitment to root cause problem solving, whose lifestyle‘s do not contribute to overpopulation and overconsumption; whereas it legally rewards cultures and subcultures whose members practice political correctness, sycophancy, hypocrisy, parasitism, denial of responsibility, self deception masquerading as ‗privacy‘ and ‗dignity‘, and a focus on Public Relations Image Management parasitism.
[13.4] The socio-political problem solving system of the Matriarchal Mosuo culture in South West China is plausibly the most credible on planet earth. The people of Henrich Joseph, Heine Steven, Norenzayan Ara (05 March 2009); Watters, Ethan (25 Feb 2013); Jones, Dan (25 June 2010) 8
Mosuo culture in SW China Delancey Street Foundation
Mosuo have no rape (not even a word in their language for rape, because it does not exist), no murder, no suicide and no unemployment; as a result of abiding by (a) the laws of nature and tribal control of population and consumption, and (b) the laws of human nature, in terms of public problem solving, and a socio-political focus on root cause problem solving. [13.5] Metaphorically South Africa‘s political, legal and academic Emperor chefs‘ are following the cooking laws for road kill stew; while attempting to convince South African citizens entering their court rooms, that the Justice being served is ‗credible‘ Crème brûlée justice; when in fact its just maggot filled road kill stew. [13.6] The only people who consider South African Jurisprudence ‗credible‘ are those who psychologically, emotionally and intellectually consider the cartoon bombs made by Wile E Coyote the Road Runner as ‗credible‘ applications of the laws of physics related to bomb making. South African Jurists Jurisprudence should be taken as ‗seriously‘ as Laurel and Hardy; in terms of its ability to accurately apply the relevant natural or scientific laws, to attain a specific related required result of inter-human and intra-species harmony and balance. If the consequences of American Naked Emperor Syndrome Jurists were not so tragic, it would in fact be beyond Laurel & Hardy hilarious. [13.7] South African citizens do not know that there is, and have been, cultures who have and do regulate (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, and ideological conflicts; with a focus of balance between all human and natural entities; to create a culture where there is no murder, no rape, no suicide, no jails, no unemployed, no significant income disparity, no homeless. [13.8] Comparatively South Africa‘s jurisprudence has resulted in a society where the (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, ethnic, cultural and ideological conflicts; has resulted in a country where murder, rape, imprisonment, unemployment, and income disparity is amongst the highest in the world. [13.9] It is not possible to create a society with no murder, no rape, no suicide, no imprisonment, low income disparity, no homeless, by continuing to following Patriarchy‘s AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Recipe!
 Mosuo: Ecocentric Gender-Balanced Sustainable Culture with no murder, rape, war, jealousy, jails or unemployment:
[14.1] The Mosuo language is rendered not in writing, but in Dongba, the only pictographic language used in the world today. The Mosuo language has no words for murder, war, rape, or jealousy, and the Mosuo have no jails and no unemployment.11 [14.2] Although the Mosuo culture is most frequently described as a matriarchal culture; in fact, its more accurate to refer to it as ―matrilineal‖, but still doesn't reflect the full truth. Accurately speaking have aspects of matriarchal culture, in that women are the head of the house, property is passed through the female line, and women tend to make the business decisions. Political power, however, remains in the hands of males, creating a gender-balanced society. [14.3] Mosuo women carry on the family name and run the households, which are usually made up of several families, with one woman elected as the head. The head matriarchs of each village govern the region by committee. [14.4] As an agrarian culture, much of the Mosuo daily life centers around tending to crops and livestock, with villages and households bartering between them for basic needs. [14.5] A typical Mosuo house is divided in to four separate structures around an open courtyard. Traditionally, families share the building with livestock, and the living and sleeping areas are communal. [14.6] Mosuo families have an incredible internal cohesiveness and stability; and Mosuo women do not (within their culture) face many of the struggles and barriers that women in many other cultures do. [14.7] Probably the most famous – and most misunderstood – aspect of Mosuo culture is their practice of ―walking marriages‖ (or ―zou hun‖ in Chinese), so called because the men will walk to the house of their ‗partner' at night, but return to their own home, within their own tribal family, in the morning. [14.8] The Mosuo generally live in large extended families, with many generations (great grandparents, grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, etc.) all living together within the same house. For the most part, everyone lives within communal quarters, without private bedrooms or living areas. However, women between certain ages, after ―coming of age‖, can have their own private bedrooms. [14.9] Traditionally, a Mosuo woman who is interested in a particular man will invite him to come and spend the night with her in her room. The man will walk to her house after dark (thus the description of ―walking marriage‖), spend the night with her, and return home early the next morning. [14.10] Although it is possible for a Mosuo woman to change partners as often as she likes – and in fact, having only one sexual partner would be neither expected nor common – the majority of such couplings are actually more long term. In fact, few
Tami Blumenfield (May 2009): The Na of Southwest China: Debunking the Myths; Washington Univ http://web.pdx.edu/~tblu2/Na/myths.pdf 11
Mosuo women have more than one partner at a time, described by some anthropologists as ―serial monogamy‖. [14.11] Even when a pairing may be long term, however, the man will never go to live with the woman's family, or vice versa. He will continue to live with and be responsible to his family, and the children of his sisters and nieces; she will continue to live with and be responsible to her family. There will be no sharing of property. [14.12] Significantly, when children are born, the father may have little or no responsibility for his offspring (in fact, some children may not even know who their father is). If a father does want to be involved with the upbringing of his children, he will bring gifts to the mother's family, and state his intention to do so. This gives him a kind of official status within that family, but does not actually make him part of the family. Regardless of whether the father is involved or not, the child will be raised in the mother's family, and take on her family name. [14.13] This does not mean, however, that the men get of scot-free, with no responsibilities for children. Quite the opposite, in fact. Every man will share responsibilities in caring for all children born to women within their own family, be they a sister, niece, aunt, etc. In fact, children will grow up with many ―aunts‖ and ―uncles‖, as all members of the extended family share in the duties of supporting and raising the children. [14.14] The result – as different as it may be from other systems – is a family structure which is, in fact, extremely stable. Divorce does not exist …there are no questions over child custody (the child belongs to the mother's family), splitting of property (property is never shared), etc. If a parent dies, there is still a large extended family to provide care. [14.15] One particularly important result is the lack of preference for a particular gender. For example, in most Chinese and patriarchal cultures, the female will join the male's family when she gets married. The result is that if a couple has a lot of female children, they will lose them after marriage, and have no one to care for them in old age; but if they have male children, their sons (and their sons' wives) will care for them. So, in poorer populations in particular, there will be a strong preference for male children. [14.16] However, among the Mosuo, since neither male nor female children will ever leave home, there is no particular preference for one gender over the other. The focus instead tends to be on maintaining some degree of gender balance, having roughly the same proportion of male to female within a household. In situations where this becomes unbalanced, it is not uncommon for Mosuo to adopt children of the appropriate gender (or even for two households to ‗swap' male/female children). [14.17] Additionally the other focus is population control, avoiding overpopulation of the family, since the family is unable to kick the children out of the home, and wash their hands, as to the sustainable future of those children. The family matriarch has the responsibility to make sure that the family does not procreate beyond its capacity to support the entire family through difficult times. 9
[14.18] Children are also raised with a gender neutral focus, where all the children dress the same and are treated in a gender neutral manner. At around the age of 1214 years, the important event known as their coming of age ceremony occurs, where girls are given skirts, and men are given their pants; thus called the ―skirt ceremony‖ for girls, and the ―pants ceremony‖ for boys. [14.19] After coming of age, Mosuo females are entitled to their own private bedroom; and, once past puberty, can begin to invite partners for ―walking marriages‖. [14.20] According to patriarchal macho Argentinean writer Ricardo Coler12, who decided to find out what it was like to live in a non-patriarchal culture, and spent two months with the Mosuo in southern China: ―Men live better where women are in charge‖ and ―Women have a different way of dominating.‖ [14.21] Coler asserts that while he expected an inverse patriarchy, he experienced something totally different, because women have a different way of dominating: ―When women rule, it's part of their work. They like it when everything functions and the family is doing well. Amassing wealth or earning lots of money doesn't cross their minds. Capital accumulation seems to be a male thing. It's not for nothing that popular wisdom says that the difference between a man and a boy is the price of his toys.‖ [14.22] What astonished Coler the most, was that there was no violence in the Mosuo culture: ―I know that quickly slips into idealization -- every human society has its problems. But it simply doesn't make sense to the Mosuo women to solve conflicts with violence. Because they are in charge, nobody fights. They don't know feelings of guilt or vengeance -- it is simply shameful to fight. They are ashamed if they do and it even can threaten their social standing. [If there is an altercation] The women decide what happens. Some of them do it more strictly and others in a friendlier way. They are strong women who give clear orders. When a man hasn't finished a task he's been given, he is expected to admit it. He is not scolded or punished, but instead he is treated like a little boy who was not up to the task.‖ [14.23] The Mosuo economy is largely agrarian, and they are capable of producing most of what they need for daily living; and consequently are by and large selfsufficient. In the past, Mosuo men would take trading caravans to other parts of China, to buy/trade products they could not produce locally. [14.24] The traditional Mosuo religion worships nature, is called Daba, with Lugu Lake regarded as the Mother Goddess and the mountain overlooking it venerated as the Goddess of Love. The Mosuo also practice Lamaism, a Tibetan variation of Buddhism. Most Mosuo homes dedicate a room specifically for Buddhist worship and for sheltering traveling lamas, or monks. Their focus is their close relationship to the land that supports them and with their neighbors, who also support them. Ricardo Coler (28 May 2009): The Mosuo Matriarchy: 'Men Live Better Where Women Are In Charge'; Der Spiegel http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-mosuo-matriarchy-men-live-better-where-women-are-in-charge-a627363.html 12
Fraud of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence: Primary Beneficiaries: Anthropocentric males and corporations; Primary Losers: NonAnthropocentric humans and nature.  The draft TYGAE Report: Credibility Failure of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence13, provides extensive examples of how and why Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence‘s primary beneficiaries are Anthropocentric humans and corporations; and its primary losers are non-anthropocentric humans and nature. [I] AnthroCorpocentric Legislator’s/Jurists Despotic Failure to Recognize their Legislative / Juristic Freedoms are limited by Laws of Nature/Ecology and Human Nature: [A] Conflict with Laws of Ecology: Finite Resource Reality: Inaccurate Assumption: NNR Abundance: [B] Conflict with Sustainable Security Military Doctrine advocating Overpopulation & Consumption induced Scarcity as a cause of Conflict: [C] Failure to implement Sustainable Security Military Doctrine, to apply laws of Nature/Ecology to legally differentiate between Sustainable and Unsustainable Procreation and Consumption behaviour. [D] Failure to implement Sustainable Security Military Doctrine, to legislate credible International Peace Treaties which confront Scarcity induced Conflict to legally differentiate between Sustainable (Peaceful) and Unsustainable (Scarcity Combatant) Procreation and Consumption behaviour. [II] AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudences Endorsement of the ‘Control of Reproduction’ Human Farming Poverty Pimping War Economy Racket. [A] Masculine Insecurity: Foundation of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence’s Human Farming ‘Control of Reproduction’ War Economy Racket. [B] Legislation of Occupational Licences for hundreds of occupations, sometimes even from children for lemonade stands, required to allegedly protect those occupations consumers from incompetent service and products. [C] Total Legislative Failure to legislate Breeding / Parenting licences, to (a) protect the rights of unborn and unwanted children, from unloving and incompetent parenting; and (b) prevent overpopulation. [D] Failure to Legislate Breeding/Parenting Licence, an endorsement of Masculine Insecurity’s use of the Control of Reproduction as a Weapon of War. [E] Profiting from the absence of Breeding/Parenting Licence, and their Control of Reproduction of a Surplus Cannon Fodder Population. [F] Profiting from the absence of Breeding/Parenting Licence, and their Control of Reproduction of a Surplus Vote and Poverty Pimp Fodder Population. 13
[III] Corporate Influence and Control of Anthropocentric Jurisprudence [A] The Hidden History of Corporations and Corporate Personhood. [B] AnthroCorpocentric Influence on Judicial Decision Making. [C] Corporate Cultural Imperialism, Cultural Identity and the Eurocentric ideology of Ecological Destruction and Compulsive Development. [D] Melting Pot Multiculturalism: the ideal Egotist Consumptionism Ideology of Multinational Capitalism.
Transforming a system of Jurisprudence from Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric to Æquilibriaex: equal & balanced Eco/Anthropocentric law. ―The law locks up the man or woman who steals the goose from the common. But the greater villain the law lets loose, who steals the common from the goose.‖ -- 17th century protest against English enclosure ―To prove a legal title to land one must trace it back to the man who stole it.‖ - Lloyd George ―Land monopoly is not the only monopoly, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies -- it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly.‖ - Winston Churchill ―If you think the environment has nothing to do with the law; try counting your money, writing a brief, making a legal argument in a court, while holding your breath. In the absence of the environment, and the resources provided by nature, anthropocentric law is totally and utterly irrelevant.‖ – Lara Johnstone
 Æquilibriæx is derived from æquus (equal), libra/æ (balance), libri (books), lex (law). Æquilibriæx – i.e. Equal & balanced Eco/Anthropocentric law/jurisprudence occurs as Equilibriæx Jurisprudence which adheres to the laws of nature / ecology, and Aquilibriæx Jurisprudence adheres to laws of human nature.  Æquilibriæx jurisprudence occurs when Legislators and Jurists recognize that their Lockean14 ―social contract‖15 duties - that their legislative/adjudicative freedoms are limited by (a) the laws of nature/ecology, which dictate that a healthy ecological environment, with due regard for regulating procreation and consumption in Roberts v. Louisiana, 431 U.S. 633 (1977) ―It is no service to individual rights, or to individual liberty, to undermine what is surely the fundamental right and responsibility of any civilized government: the maintenance of order so that all may enjoy liberty and security. Learned Hand surely had it right when he observed: ―And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.‖ The Spirit of Liberty 190 (3d ed., 1960).‖ 14 15
accordance to the carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights; and (B) the laws of human nature; where the relevant disputing parties cultural, religious, and ideological laws of human nature16, are applied to achieve the greatest possible level of intra-species harmony and balance.  Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence recognizes all Leaver beings, species, individuals, corporations, families, tribes, etc., rights to legal personhood; but based upon the principles of CommonSism, distinguishes between Sustainable Leavers who are recognized and legally rewarded for their contribution towards Æquilibriæx inter and intra-species harmony, and Unsustainable Takers who are recognized and legally penalized for their contribution towards Æquilibriæx inter and/or intra-species disharmony and discord.  CommonSism, or Common Sense Guerrylla Laws for a Sustainable Commons, is inspired by -- among others -- the Taker vs. Leaver and Leaver Law of Limited Competition ideas of the gorilla Ishmael, in Daniel Quinn's books: Ishmael and My Ishmael; Tragedy of the Commons ideas, as expressed by Garrett Hardin, and the Order of Melchizedek ideas of Yakov Rabinovich, as expressed in Stairway to Nowhere: Chapter 8: Melchizedek — Ecological War.  CommonSism asserts that a majority of society's problems - crime, violence, unemployment, poverty, inflation, food shortages, political instability, vanishing species, garbage and pollution urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, energy and non-renewable resources (NNR) depletion and scarcity are symptoms of Ecological Overshoot, resulting from the AnthroCorpoCentric Consumptionist Left and Right Wing's war against nature, and the absence of Ecocentric Jurisprudence combined with the failures of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence.  Ecological Overshoot is a consequence of all other ideologies and their AnthroCorpocentric adherents failure to legally (a) define the difference between sustainable and unsustainable procreation and consumption behaviour; and (b) provide legal, including voting rights to sustainable practices, and legal penalties, including denial of rights, including voting rights, to unsustainable individuals, corporations and organisations.  Guerrylla Laws (A) simply and very specifically clarify the difference between the consumption and procreation behaviour of an Unsustainable Taker (Scarcity Combatant) vs a Sustainable Leaver (Eco-Innocent); and are (B) used in courts to (a) provide legal rights and socio-political rewards of recognition to Sustainable Leaver's for their Heroic lifestyle choices and practices; (b) confront Taker Scarcity Combatants of their Breeding / Consumption combatant behaviours aggravation of Scarcity induced socio-economic problems, by means of aggravated legal penalties, in accordance to their 'Taker Scarcity Combatant' status. An organisation or corporation who only employs Leavers is a Leaver organisation, and one which has one or more Takers, is considered a Taker organisation. Henrich Joseph, Heine Steven, Norenzayan Ara (05 March 2009); Watters, Ethan (25 Feb 2013); Jones, Dan (25 June 2010) 16
 The Tragedy of the Commons is an ecological concept that refers to the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, despite their understanding that depleting the common resource is contrary to their long-term best interests. Ecologist Garrett Hardin famously explored this social dilemma in ―The Tragedy of the Commons‖.17  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; such as for example overfishing, energy "brownout" and "blackout" power outages during periods of extreme temperatures, overgrazing on the Sahelian Desert, and the destruction of the rainforest by logging interests and agriculture. Social fence refers to a short-term avoidance behavior by individuals that leads to a long-term loss to the entire group.  Tragedy of the Commons (ToC) Principles: Finite Limited Resources: Limited Rights: ―We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc., you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population an act of war.‖ - Former Municipal Court Judge Jason G. Brent, Humans: An Endangered Species18 ―Every right must be evaluated in the network of all rights claimed and the environment in which these rights are exercised. If we hold that every right, ―natural" or not, must be evaluated in the total system of rights operating in a world that is limited, we must inevitably conclude that no right can be presumed to be absolute, that the effect of each right on the suppliers as well as on the demanders must be determined before we can ascertain the quantity of right that is admissible. From here on out, ours is a limited world. Rights must also be limited. The greater the population, the more limited the per capita supply of all goods; hence the greater must be the limitation on individual rights, including the right to breed. At its heart, this is the political meaning of the population problem.‖ – Garrett Hardin, Limited World, Limited Rights19, Biological Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA
 Garrett Hardin‘s Tragedy of the Commons, 1968 essay focussed on clarifying how the population problem was a moral problem, and required a moral solution. Hardin showed why Adam Smith's laissez-faire doctrine and belief that the invisible hand enables a system of individuals to pursue their private interests which will automatically serve the collective interest; is flawed. Hardin, G (1968/12/13) www.jgbrent.com 19 Limited World, Limited Rights, by Garrett Hardin, Biological Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_limited_world_limited_rights.html 17 18
 Hardinâ€˜s key metaphor, the Tragedy of the Commons (ToC) showed why Smith was wrong. Hardin argued that when a resource is held "in common," with many people having "ownership" and access to it, a self-interested "rational" actor will decide to increase his or her exploitation of the resource since he or she receives the full benefit of the increase, but the costs are spread among all users. When many people think this way, the tragic result is the overexploitation and ruin of the commons. Similar to the herdsman, couples expect to experience a large benefit from having a second child, or consuming above carrying capacity, without having to bear the full social and ecological cost of their choices. 
Hardinâ€&#x;s Tragedy of the Commons Assumptions & Solutions: [28.1]
The world is biophysically finite.
The more people there are, and the more they consume, the less each person's share must be.
Technology (ie, agricultural) cannot fundamentally alter this.
We can't both maximize the number of people and satisfy every desire or "good" of everyone.
Practically, biophysical limits dictate we must both stabilize population, and consumption.
Both steps will generate opposition, since many people will have to relinquish their procreation and/or consumption behaviour.
[28.2] Over-population and overconsumption are exampleâ€˜s of the tragedy of the commons (ToC). A.
Commons are un-owned or commonly-held "pool" resources that are "free," or not allocated by markets.
Hardin's ToC model assumes that individuals are short-term, self-interested "rational" actors, seeking to maximize their own gains.
Such actors will exploit commons (have more babies, add more cattle to pastures, pollute the air, overconsume) as long as they believe the costs to them individually are less than the benefits.
The system of individual welfare insulates individuals from bearing the full costs of over-reproducing, and corporate welfare insulates corporations from bearing the costs of overproduction.
When every individual believes and behaves in this manner, commons are quickly filled, degraded, and ruined along with their erst-while exploiters.
A laissez-faire system (letting individuals choose as they like) will not "as if by an invisible hand" solve over-population and/or overconsumption.
[28.3] The "commons" system for breeding and consuming must be abandoned (as it has been for other resources). 15
In other words, something must restrain individual reproduction and consumption.
but it must not be individual conscience; appealing to conscience will only result in fewer people with conscience in the population (assuming here that it is genetic, or perfectly transmitted by learning).
It should be accomplished by "mutual coercion mutually agreed upon."
Sacrificing freedom to breed and consume will obtain for us other more important freedoms which will otherwise be lost.
"Coercive" restrictions on breeding and consuming could take a number of forms.
The "right" to determine the size of one's family and socio-economic consumption status, must be rescinded.
This will protect the conscientious traits in the population.
The problem is then to gain peoples' consent to a system of coercion.
People will consent if they understand the dire consequences of letting the population growth rate and consumption growth rate, be set only by individuals' choices.
Educating all people about the ToC, its consequences, and the alternatives to it, is necessary.
Then various restraints and incentives for low reproduction and consumption, below the commons carrying capacity limits, can and must be instituted.
 Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Tragedy of the Commons Rights and Penalties:  Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Taker and Leaver Rights and Penalties are designed to remove the AnthroCorpocentric jurisprudence breeding and consumption war incentives to violate the Commons carrying capacity. If or when an individual chooses to procreate or consume above the Commons carrying capacity (be a Taker), they thereby make their own voluntary decision to deny themselves access to the Commons social contract‘s protection of rights to liberty, life and property, etc. They choose – by their decision to overbreed and overconsume -- to no longer be entitled to the social contract protections to life, liberty and property, etc.  Right to Life: Leavers are entitled to state social contract protection of their right to life, since they are living a lifestyle which respects all other species social contract right to life (within the law of limited competition). Takers are not automatically entitled to the ‗right‘ to life, since their procreation and/or consumption lifestyle deliberately violates the ‗right to life‘ of nature and animals and plant species. For example: If or where a Taker is murdered, either by another Taker or a leaver, it is for the Takers‘ family to prosecute the matter as a civil matter, and 16
attempt to convince the Jury how or why the Taker should be given an exemption access to the Leaver‘s right to life. If the accused (Taker or Leaver) can prove to the court, that the person who was murdered, was – in terms of their Taker procreation and consumption behaviours – committing murder of Leavers, and nature, by denying and stealing their land and access to their habitats, then the murder of such a Taker, would have been beneficial to Æquilibriæx harmony, since the murdered Taker was creating disharmony by his procreation and/or consumption greedy practices.  Property Ownership: Leavers are entitled to social contract protection of their property rights, since they are living a lifestyle which respects all other species social contract property rights. Takers are not automatically entitled to the ‗right‘ to protection of their property, since they are living above carrying capacity and deliberately violating the property rights of nature and animals and plant species. If Takers allege their property has been damaged or stolen, they can prosecute the matter as a civil matter. For example: If a robber robs a bank, and is again robbed by another robber outside the bank, who steals his ‗stolen property‘, he has no ‗right‘ to claim that it was his ‗lawful property‘. Similarly any individual who is living above Commons carrying capacity, cannot claim that his ‗property‘ is his own ‗lawful property‘, because in violating the Commons Carrying capacity, he is stealing property, liberty, and life from other species and nature; hence his property is ‗stolen property‘.  Right to Vote & be Employed as Civil Servant: Leavers are entitled to social contract right to vote, and to be employed as a civil servant, including the right to legislate social contract laws, since they are living a lifestyle which demonstrates their competency to respect all other species life, voting and property rights, in accordance to carrying capacity principles. Takers are not entitled to the ‗right‘ to vote, or to be employed as a civil servant, since they are living above carrying capacity and deliberately violating the life, property and voting rights of nature and animals and plant species, demonstrating either their incompetence or moral delinquency.  Right to Freedom of Speech, Liberty etc: Similarly, leavers are entitled to these social contract rights; whereas Takers are not entitled to these rights. If or where a Taker considers any such ‗right‘ to have been violated, they are however entitled to prosecute the matter as a civil matter.  Penalties for Civil Prosecutors acting for Takers: If or where an Attorney chooses to proceed to prosecute a civil matter on behalf of a Taker‘s grievances, and fails to convince more than 40% of the jurors of his Taker client‘s argument, his first penalty is to lose access to Leaver status for his entire life, and his second strike penalty is to receive the ‗Tragedy of the Courts Commons‘ death penalty. 
Equilibriaex (Ecocentric) Principles:
[36.1] Equilibriæx Jurisprudence groups Human‘s into Unsustainable Takers (Scarcity Combatants) and Sustainable Leavers (Eco-Innocents) cultures and societies. 
Sustainable Leavers follow Ecological Law of Limited Competition:
[37.1] Daniel Quinn defines the Ecological Law of Limited Competition as such: you may compete to the full extent of your capabilities but you may not hunt down your competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food, i.e wage war. [37.2] Essentially what this means is that you cannot claim ownership of all the food. You can compete for the food that you need, but you cannot say "all the food is mine and no one else who wants any can have some." You can fight for food but you cannot act in a genocidal fashion, setting out to kill those who compete with you merely because they compete with you. [37.3] A lion and a hyena may compete with each other to determine who gets to eat the dead antelope. However the lions may not rally together and set out to eliminate hyenas lest they challenge them for any of their kills. To do so would be to operate outside the boundaries of the law. [37.4] How The Law is Self Eliminating: If the lions did rally together and kill of all the hyenas then there would be more food for them. Their population would increase and their territory would expand. But there would still be other competitors for their food. So the lions set up a special task force to go out and eliminate other species that compete for food and living space. [37.5] Elimination doesn't occur instantly. It takes place when there is nowhere left to expand, no competitors left to destroy. If a species destroys their competitors then there is more food available to them. With more food they can support a higher population. And with a higher population they need more living space so they expand their territory. But as they expand their territory they meet more competitors who are eating food that could be theirs. So they destroy them, taking all the food in the new territory. With all this new food population expands again and so does territory. [37.6] And then it happens all over again. This way of life works for a short period of time. It doesn't eliminate the species instantly. Elimination only takes place when there is nowhere left to expand into, no competitors left to destroy. [37.7] When this happens the way of life implodes. So many competitors have been destroyed that the biodiversity of the ecosystem has been fatally weakened. All that the landscape now supports is the lawbreaker and the lawbreaker's food. With biodiversity gone and the food chain destroyed the food supply of the lawbreakers will fall apart and when the food supply falls apart the lawbreaker is eliminated. [37.8] Quinn argues that humans are the only species to have broken this law, beginning with Agriculture, 10 000 years ago.  Law of Limited Competition Principles: “You may compete but you may not wage war.”:
[38.1] Takers exterminate their competitors, which is something that never happens in the wild. In the wild, animals will defend their territories and their kills and they will invade their competitors' territories and pre-empt their kills. Some species even include competitors among their prey, but they never hunt competitors down just to make them dead, the way ranchers and farmers do with coyotes and foxes and crows. What they hunt, they eat." When animals go huntingâ€”even extremely aggressive animals like baboonsâ€”it's to obtain food, not to exterminate competitors or even animals that prey on them." [38.2] Takers systematically destroy their competitors' food to make room for their own. Nothing like this occurs in the natural community. The rule there is: Take what you need, and leave the rest alone". [38.3] Takers deny their competitors access to food. In the wild, the rule is: You may deny your competitors access to what you're eating, but you may not deny them access to food in general. In other words, you can say, `This gazelle is mine,' but you can't say, `All the gazelles are mine.' The lion defends its kill as its own, but it doesn't defend the herd as its own." "Bees will deny you access to what's inside their hive in the apple tree, but they won't deny you access to the apples." 
Two Agri-Cultures: Sustainable Leavers and Unsustainable Takers:
[39.1] World Food and Human Population Growth, describes how food supply drives human population growth, and how human population growth adversely affects our environment and our ability to sustain our culture. This began with the agricultural revolution, a cultural change which advocates continually increasing food production. The consequences of Agricultural expansion are: * decreased carbon sequestration (80%), decreased soil nutrients (20%), decreased base stream flow (30%), and decreased species biodiversity (80%).20 [39.2] In Genetic feedback and human population 20
Hopfenberg, Russell (2007): Chapter 32-33: Before â€“ After Forest Conversion to Cropland
regulation21, Russell Hopfenberg clarifies the different consequences between the practices of these two Agri-Cultures: ―Lack of cultural variability is precisely the situation in which the human species finds itself. Except for a tiny minority of tribal peoples on the planet, the human species can be seen as participating in a monoculture. This monoculture, called civilization (Quinn 1992; Cohen 1995), has as its foundation, the basic feature of continually increasing food production. As Cohen (1995) stated, ―The ability to produce food allowed human numbers to increase greatly and made it possible, eventually, for civilizations to arise.‖ Farb (1978) pointed out that ―intensification of production to feed an increased population leads to a still greater increase in population.‖ He also asserted ―the population explosion, the shortage of resources, the pollution of the environment, exploitation of one human group by another, famine and war—all have their roots in that great adaptive change from foraging to production.‖ Farb’s statement makes clear that the ―adaptive change from foraging to production‖ is coming into focus as one that has provided some relatively short-term benefits and many long-term difficulties. These difficulties may ultimately lead to an environment that is no longer capable of sustaining human life (Pimm et al. 1995).‖
 Current Arable land is a category of agricultural land, which, according to Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) definition, additionally includes land under permanent or perennial crops, such as fruit plantations, as well as permanent pastures, for grazing of livestock. In 2008, the world's total arable land amounted to 13,805,153 km², and 48,836,976 km² was classified as "agricultural land."22  Reducing Human Impact on Nature/Environment, requires population and consumption reduction.  The impact of humans on the environment and the demands that people place on the resources available on the planet can be summarised by what is known as the Ehrlich or IPAT equation, I=PAT. I = impact on the environment or demand for resources, P = population size, A = affluence and T = technology. 
The two most important conclusions deriving from this relationship are that:
Hopfenberg, R. (2009) FAO Resources page". FAO.org. 2010. http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-publications/ess-yearbook/essyearbook2010/yearbook2010-reources/en/ 21 22
[43.1] the Earth can support only a limited number of people, at a certain level of affluence, in a sustainable manner; and [43.2] 
Population and Consumption must be reduced to below carrying capacity.
Ecological Footprint: Consumption x Procreation Factor:
[44.1] Guerrylla Laws define the Eco/Ego Footprint23 procreation and consumption behaviour of an individual as a Sustainable Leaver (aka Eco-Innocent) or Unsustainable Taker (aka Scarcity-Combatant), based upon a sustainable consumption bio-capacity of 1 global hectare (gha)24 (60 % of 1.8 gha)25 in accordance with the proactive conservation policies of Bhutan26; multiplied by an individuals Breeding footprint factor of 20 per child. [(Each Child increases a parents footprint by factor of 2027)] [44.2] Sustainable Leaver / Eco-Innocent: 0 children, consumption < 20 gha (Intn'l Biocapacity (1 gha) x 20); or 1 child, consumption < 1 gha. [44.3] Unsustainable Taker / Scarcity-Combatant: 0 children, consumption > 20 gha; or 1 child, consumption > 1 gha. [44.4] For example: My Consumption Footprint28 using Sustainable Economy's Myfootprint.org quiz, is 12.75 global hectares (gha). South Africa's average consumption footprint is 38.59 gha. Amici has no children, consequently her procreation factor is 0 x 20* = 0. My Consumption (12.75) x Procreation (0) = Eco Footprint of 12.75/0 gha. If accurate, if everyone consumed like me, we would need 0.81 earths.29 Conversely, if everyone consumed and procreated like President Jacob Zuma, we would need 2090 earths30.
EcoFootprint: The difference between the biocapacity and Ecological Footprint of a region or country. A biocapacity deficit occurs when the Footprint of a population exceeds the biocapacity of the area available to that population. If there is a regional or national biocapacity deficit, it means that the region is importing biocapacity through trade or liquidating regional ecological assets. Global biocapacity deficit cannot be compensated through trade, and is overshoot. 24 Sustainable Footprint Biocapacity: A biocapacity of 1 gha assumes that 40% of land is set aside for other species. 1 gha is 60 % of 1.8 gha, therefore .8 hectares is set aside for other species. 25 International Biocapacity: In 2006, the average biologically productive area (biocapacity) per person worldwide was approximately 1.8 global hectares (gha) per capita. In 2008, there were ~ 12 billion hectares of biologically productive land and water on Earth. Dividing by the number of people alive in that year (6.7 billion) gives 1.79 global hectares per person. This assumes that no land is set aside for other species that consume the same biological material as humans. If for example, there were only 3.5 billion people alive that year, that would have provided everyone with 3.5 gha. If there were only 1 billion people, their would be 12gha biocapacity for each persons needs. 26 Bhutan Proactive Conservation: Bhutan is seen as a model for proactive conservation initiatives. The Kingdom has received international acclaim for its commitment to the maintenance of its biodiversity. This is reflected in the decision to maintain at least sixty percent of the land area under forest cover, to designate more than 40% of its territory as national parks, reserves and other protected areas, and most recently to identify a further nine percent of land area as biodiversity corridors linking the protected areas. Environmental conservation has been placed at the core of the nation's development strategy, the middle path. It is not treated as a sector but rather as a set of concerns that must be mainstreamed in Bhutan's overall approach to development planning and to be buttressed by the force of law. - "Parks of Bhutan". Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation online. Bhutan Trust Fund. 27 Paul Murtaugh (7-31-09): Family Planning: A Major Environmental Emphasis, Oregon University 28 http://myfootprint.org/en/your_results/?id=2559685 29 http://sqworms.weebly.com/lara-johnstone-eco-081.html 30 President Zuma‘s consumption footprint using Sustainable Economy's Myfootprint.org quiz, is 65.66 global hectares (gha). President Zuma‘s Procreation Factor is 500 [President Zuma has 25 children. His procreation footprint factor is 25 x 20* = 500. (Each Child increases a parents footprint by factor of 20 )]. President Zuma‘s Net Consumption & Procreation Footprint is 33280 gha [Consumption (65.66) x Procreation (500) = Net Footprint of 33280 gha]. If accurate, if everyone consumed and procreated like President Zuma, we would need 2,090 earths. http://sqworms.weebly.com/jacob-zuma-ego-2090.html 23
Aquilibriaex (Anthropocentric) Principles: 
Cultural Variances in „Human Nature‟:
[45.1] Aquilibriæx jurisprudence believes that there are great cultural variances in the ‗laws of human nature‘. Such cultural diversity should be recognized and honestly confronted and honest transparent solutions found to resolve disputes between diverse culture‘s with totally different ‗laws of human nature‘. People from different cultures, see the world in the socially and cultural constructed ways of their particular culture. Under our skins and particularly in our minds, in terms of how we view the world, and subsequently how we act in terms of our worldview, we are culturally very different. [45.2] Aquilibriæx jurisprudence recognizes that culture shapes human cognition, including but not limited to ―visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ‖. [45.3] Our culture‘s socially constructed worldview and practices shape our minds, actions, beliefs and ideas. Our minds mould themselves to our cultural and environmental practices. Our culture‘s mould our most fundamental conscious and unconscious thinking and perception. We see and relate to the world, through the prism of our cultural values and social and environmental practices. [45.4]
As argued in The Weirdest People in the World31:
Behavioural scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology, cognition, and behaviour in the world’s top journals based on samples drawn entirely from highly educated segments of Western societies. Researchers—often implicitly—assume that either there is little variation across human populations, or that these ―standard subjects‖ are as representative of the species as any other. Are these assumptions justified? Here, our review of the comparative database from across the behavioural sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that standard subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species—frequent outliers. The domains reviewed include visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ. The comparative findings suggest that members of Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Many of these findings involve domains that are associated with fundamental aspects of psychology, motivation, or behaviour — hence, there are no obvious a priori grounds for claiming that a particular behavioural phenomenon is universal based on sampling from a single 31
Henrich Joseph, Heine Steven & Norenzayan Ara (05 March 2009)
subpopulation. Overall, these empirical patterns suggests that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity. We close by proposing ways to structurally re-organize the behavioural sciences to best tackle these challenges.
Resolving Conflict between Cultural Variances in „Human Nature‟:
[46.1] Aquilibriæx jurisprudence argues that the most effective ways to resolve inter-cultural conflict, is:  Transparent Simple Clarity: A cultures honesty and transparency is considered directly proportional to how explicitly clear and succinct they define and explain their values in simple language, and how consistently they live in accordance to such cultural values.  Reconcilable Cultural Differences: Cultures with differences which are reconcilable, i.e. the differences are not mutually exclusive, but capable of culturally intimate coexistence.32  Irreconcilable Cultural Differences: Cultures with differences which are irreconcilable, i.e. the differences are mutually exclusive, a cause of friction when members of the culture‘s interact, and hence incapable of intimate cultural coexistence.  Melting Pot Multiculturalism: Culture‘s with reconcilable cultural differences are capable of resolving their disputes and finding a harmonious balance between their various reconcilable cultural differences. [50.1] Melting Pot Multiculturalism only works when both cultures voluntarily coexist with their mutually reconcilable differences. When Melting Pot multiculturalists force or coerce one or more cultures who have irreconcilable differences, to coexist in a Melting Pot, then the culture which is coerced into suppressing and denying the practice of their cultural values, shall build up anger and resentment towards both their perceived ‗enemy‘ culture, and the coercing authority; which shall eventually – like a pressure cooker build up and finally explode into extremely violent conflict (For example: Anders Breivik).  Separatist Multiculturalism: Cultures with irreconcilable cultural differences are incapable of resolving their disputes and finding a harmonious balance between their cultural values. Such cultures can only coexist by implementing separatist multiculturalism between their cultures, thereby respecting and honouring both cultures rights to exist separately with the least amount of contact between the cultures possible, thereby also denying both cultures the opportunity to resolve their irreconcilable differences by means of physical, economic or other forms of cultural colonization.
Zizek, Slavoj (15 Nov 2001)
Example of the Application of Aequilibriaex Principles, from a submission to the Military Judge of the US Army First Judicial Court, Ft. Meade in the matter of United States v. Bradley Manning:  On 02 April, an application33 was made to the Military Judge of the US Army First Judicial Court, Ft. Meade, to file an Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Sustainable Security Amicus Curiae on the Credibility Failure‘s of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence, in the matter of US vs. Pfc Bradley Manning. ****** Application of Equilibriaex (Ecocentric) Principles:  The Equilibriæx/Ecocentric analysis of alleged crime with regard to the laws of nature / ecology. Did criminal act contribute to greater inter-species carrying capacity harmony, or dischord, between between humans, nature and other animals species?  An Equilibriæx analysis would include (a) evidence as to whether the party is an Unsustainable Taker (Scarcity Combatant) or a Sustainable Leaver (Eco-Innocent), (b) how the act contributed to greater inter-species carrying capacity harmony or dischord between humans, nature and other animal species: how did it affect soil, forests, water, minerals, animals, fish, insects, plants, and air quality; (c) if the defendant is a leaver, Equilibriæx reasons why the charges should be dismissed, and if the defendant is a Taker, Equilibriæx reasons why the penalty should include the death penalty. 
Leaver Defendants Rights vs. Taker Plaintiffs Penalties:
[55.1] If the non-insect human mammal entity, known as the Defendant: Pfc Bradley Manning‘s consumption footprint was that of an average American, i.e. in 2007 (8 gha)34, then it would be below 20 gha, then he would be a Leaver, considering that he has no children. [55.2] If the non-insect human fictional legal concept state/corporate entity, known as the United States Government, employed only Leavers, and consumed below carrying capacity, in terms of its number of employees, it would be considered a Leaver entity, but since it employs thousands of Takers, and – except for small pockets of Leaver Conscious Sustainable Security35 (Scarcity induces Conflict36) http://sqswans.weebly.com/us-army-1-jud-crt.html "Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010". Global Footprint Network. 13 October 2010. http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/ecological_footprint_atlas_2010 35 Bundeswehr (Sep 2010); Butts, Kent (25 April 1994); Bush, Col BX (13 Mar 1997); David, MAJ William E (April 1996); United States Army Command and General Staff College; Department of the Army (December 1994); Department of Defense (Jan 2012); Gizewski, Peter (Spring 1997); Koppel, T (2000); Military Advisory Board (MAB)(April 2007); Murphy, R (2006/10/24); Parthemore, C & Nagl, J (2010/09/27); Peters, Ralph (1996); Rickover, H (1957/05/14); Schultz, S (2010/09/01); Ubbelohde, LTC Kurt F. (10 April 2000); Chiarelli, Peter W General (6 Nov 2008); United States Army & TRADOC (2012); United States Joint Forces Command (15 March 2010); U.S. Forest Service (Dec 2012); White House (1974); Chiarelli, Peter W General (6 Nov 2008) 36 Homer-Dixon, T (1991); Homer-Dixon, T, & Boutwell, J, & Rathjens, G (1993); Homer-Dixon, T (1994); Homer-Dixon, T (June 1995); Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Gizewski, Peter (June 1995); Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Howard, Philip (June 1995); Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Kelly, Kimberley (June 1995); Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Percival, Valerie 33 34
Military Doctrine Believers – is one of the most Taker focussed Governments on planet earth, it is a Taker. [55.3] Defendant Pfc Manning consequently has Leaver Right to Life, Liberty and Property; whereas Plaintiff‘ United States Government has Taker Penalties denial of rights to Life, Property, Voting or employment as a Civil Servant Employee. 
Æquilibriæx: Leaver Defendants Rights vs. Taker Plaintiffs Penalties:
[56.1] All charges against Leaver Defendant Manning should be dismissed, as the Plaintiff United States Government has no ‗Leaver‘ right to access to a State Prosecution to charge Leaver Manning [56.2] All members of the Prosecution who are Takers, have no right to be employed as a Civil Servant, and should be discharged, for failing to procreate and/or consume below carrying capacity and are deliberately violating the life, property and voting rights of nature and animals and plant species, demonstrating either their Commons incompetence or moral delinquency. [56.3] If the Taker United States Government wishes to proceed with their charges against Leaver Pfc Manning, they should hire – from their own individual finances – a Private Attorney to launch a Civil Prosecution against Pfc Manning. [56.4] If or where an Attorney chooses to proceed to prosecute these charges as a civil matter on behalf of the Taker‘s Plaintiff‘s grievances, and fails to convince more than 40% of the jurors of his Taker client‘s argument, his first penalty is to lose access to Leaver status for his entire life, and his second strike penalty is to receive the ‗Tragedy of the Courts Commons‘ death penalty; to be executed by his Taker clients.  Private Prosecution: Leaver Defendants Rights vs. Taker Plaintiffs Penalties: [57.1] The Taker Plaintiffs can hire an attorney at their own individual cost, and choose to proceed to prosecute these charges as a civil matter, where such Taker Plaintiff‘s charge Leaver Manning with UCMJ 104 (Aiding the enemy)37, UCMJ 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation); and UCMJ 134 (General article)38.
(June 1995); Homer-Dixon, T (Sep 1995); Homer-Dixon & Percival (Oct 1995); Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Gizewski, Peter (April 1996); Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Schwartz, Daniel; Deligiannis, Tom (Summer 2000). 37 1 count. This charge carries a potential death penalty. 38 Most of these counts incorporate civilian statutes from the United States Code: (i) 18 U.S.C. § 641: Embezzlement and Theft of Public Money, Property or Records. The government has claimed that various sets of records that Manning transferred were 'things of value' and has thus charged him under this statute. (ii) 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): This is part of the Espionage Act. The law forbids 'unauthorized persons' from taking 'national defense' information and either 'retaining' it or delivering it to 'persons not entitled to receive it'. The terminology is rather complicated and often contested in court. 793(e) exists because the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 modified the original 1917 Espionage Act, partly because of the Alger Hiss/Pumpkin papers case. It is also the same law used against Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo in the Pentagon papers case. (iii) 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a) 1 & 2: These are from the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. 1030(a)(1) is sometimes called the 'Computer Espionage' law as it borrows much of its language from the Espionage Act. It was modified by the USA Patriot Act of 2001, which added it to the 'Federal Crimes of Terrorism' list, as well as making it prosecutable under RICO (Racketeering) law.
 UCMJ 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation) (General article)40:
and UCMJ 134
[58.1] These charges are problematic for the Plaintiff Takers to the extent that Defendant Manning is a Leaver, and is entitled to rights to liberty, property, life, free speech, etc. The Taker Plaintiff‘s argument is that the Leaver Defendant stole their ‗proprietary information‘, their property. However the Taker‘s have no ‗right‘ to ‗their‘ stolen property; since it is common knowledge that Takers are Takers, precisely because they have violated the Common‘s Carrying Capacity rules regarding to other species rights to life, liberty and property. [58.2] Taker Plaintiff would need to present evidence that (a) although they are Takers, their specific actions related to this dispute were in support of Leaver Equilibriæx principles, and hence they should be granted temporary Exemption status access to any particular Leaver Right to ‗Property Ownership‘, etc.; and/or (b) that although the Defendant is a ‗Leaver‘, his specific actions related to this dispute were in support of Taker Equilibriæx principles, and hence his automatic access to Leaver Rights should be diminished or voided in this particular dispute circumstance.  UCMJ 104 (Aiding the enemy)41: Spec. 1: Knowingly giving intelligence to the enemy through indirect means: [59.1] These charges are also problematic for the Plaintiff to the extent that Defendant Manning is a Leaver, and the alleged ‗intelligence‘ is considered to be the Taker Plaintiff‘s ‗stolen property‘. [59.2] Leaver Enemy: It is not possible for a ‗Leaver‘ to be an automatic enemy of nature or any animal species, while procreating and consuming in accordance to the Commons Carrying Capacity social contract; since they do not engage in the scarcity combatant‘s – procreation or consumption war – behaviour. A Leaver can only be temporarily considered a ‗Taker‘ if they participate in an act or event, in support of Taker Equilibriæx principles; i.e. advocacy or actions on behalf of population growth, or economic growth, i.e. any action which contributes to the Taker war against Leavers, nature, animal and/or plant species.
9 counts. Mostly related to computers: (i) Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-6(k): Forbids transferring classified info to non-secure systems; (ii) Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(3): Modifying or installing unauthorized software to a system, using it for 'unintended' purposes; (iii) Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(4): Circumventing security mechanisms; (iv) Army Regulation 380-5: Improper storage of Classified Information. 40 Most of these counts incorporate civilian statutes from the United States Code: (i) 18 U.S.C. § 641: Embezzlement and Theft of Public Money, Property or Records. The government has claimed that various sets of records that Manning transferred were 'things of value' and has thus charged him under this statute. (ii) 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): This is part of the Espionage Act. The law forbids 'unauthorized persons' from taking 'national defense' information and either 'retaining' it or delivering it to 'persons not entitled to receive it'. The terminology is rather complicated and often contested in court. 793(e) exists because the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 modified the original 1917 Espionage Act, partly because of the Alger Hiss/Pumpkin papers case. It is also the same law used against Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo in the Pentagon papers case. (iii) 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a) 1 & 2: These are from the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. 1030(a)(1) is sometimes called the 'Computer Espionage' law as it borrows much of its language from the Espionage Act. It was modified by the USA Patriot Act of 2001, which added it to the 'Federal Crimes of Terrorism' list, as well as making it prosecutable under RICO (Racketeering) law. 41 1 count. This charge carries a potential death penalty. 39
[59.3] Taker Enemy: Conversely all Takers, choose to violate the Commons Carrying Capacity social contract; by engaging in scarcity combatant‘s – procreation or consumption war – behaviour against all other species and nature‘s Commons social contract rights. A Taker can only be temporarily considered a ‗Leaver‘ if they participate in an act or event, in support of Leaver Equilibriæx principles; i.e. advocacy or actions on behalf of the defence of Leavers, nature, animal and/or plant species, from the Taker War against them. [59.4] If it is determined that the alleged enemy is a ‗Leaver‘, then his Leaver rights to access to information, access to justice, in terms of his ‗Leaver Enemy‘ actions on behalf of restoration of the Commons Social Contract, against a Taker Scarcity Combatant; shall heavily trump the Taker‘s Penalty claims to ‗rights‘ to his stolen property. [59.5] If it is determined that the alleged enemy is a ‗Taker‘, the Plaintiff‘s dispute relates to two Taker robbers arguing about who has lawful ownership of stolen property, which originally and lawfully belongs to Leavers. [59.6] The Leaver Defendant can enhance his argument by providing evidence that his alleged criminal act, was in defence of Leavers, nature, animal and/or plant species, from the Taker War against them. [59.7] Conversely the Plaintiff Taker can enhance his argument by providing – for example – a ‗Genghis Khan the Leaver Warrior‘42 argument: evidence their Taker ‗war‘ actions, were only killing Scarcity combatants, on such a scale as to make a significant return of former agricultural or cultivated land, to forest or uncultivated land, for significant long term benefit of nature and other animal species diversity. Put differently, their Taker war was ultimately in defence of Leavers, and a return of stolen land to Leavers, nature, plant and animal species.  Private Prosecution: Taker Defendants Penalties vs. Taker Plaintiffs Penalties: [60.1] If the non-insect human mammal entity, known as the Defendant: Pfc Bradley Manning‘s consumption footprint was above 20 gha, then he would be a Taker. [60.2] Since both parties are Takers, both would need to present the court with evidence, that although they are Takers, their specific actions related to this dispute, were in defence of Leavers, or in support of Leaver Equilibriæx principles, and hence should be granted temporary Exemption status access to any particular Leaver Right to ‗Property Ownership‘, ‗liberty‘ or ‗freedom of access to information‘, etc. [60.3] If no Taker party is able to attain temporary access to Leaver Rights, they are the equivalent of two robbers fighting over stolen property, which was stolen from nature, animals and plants species. If either of the parties made any effort to Pongratz, Julia (20 January 2011): Genghis Khan the GREEN: Invader killed so many people that carbon levels plummeted. ―Genghis Khan has been branded the greenest invader in history - after his murderous conquests killed so many people that huge swathes of cultivated land returned to forest. .. The 700 million tons of carbon absorbed as a result of the Mongol empire is about the same produced in a year from the global use of petrol.‖ 42
steal the already stolen property to return it to its lawful owners: nature, animals or plants, such a Taker party‘s actions may not be enough to entitle them to ‗Leaver rights‘, but should be deemed as actions on behalf of, or motivated by Leaver Equilibriæx principles. [60.4] If the Taker Plaintiff‘s Civil Prosecutor fails to convince more than 40% of the jurors of his Taker client‘s argument, his first penalty is to lose access to Leaver status for his entire life, and his second strike penalty is to receive the ‗Tragedy of the Courts Commons‘ death penalty, to be delivered by his Taker Client. Application of Aquilibriaex (Anthropocentric) Principles:  The Aquilibriæx/Anthropocentric analysis of alleged ‗crime‘ with regard to the laws of human nature. Did criminal act contribute to greater intra-species equity harmony, or discord, between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, cultural, religious and ideological conflicts?  An Aquilibriæx analysis would include (a) the parties cultural hierarchy identity, i.e. leaver/taker, Nation/religion/culture/employment culture, etc; (b) each cultural hierarchy‘s relevant cultural legal principles, related to the specific principles in dispute; (c) whether the alleged criminal acts, are legally considered ‗crimes‘ in both parties cultures, (d) if not: whether different cultural values in dispute are mutually reconcilable or irreconcilable, (e) how or why the alleged criminal act, acting in accordance to the parties cultural legal principles, contributed to greater intra-species equity harmony, or discord , between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, cultural, religious and ideological conflicts. 
Parties Cultural Hierarchy Identity:
[63.1] It is quite possible the Leaver Defendant, even though he qualifies for Leaver Rights, does not personally identify, in terms of his lifestyle aspirations, with Leaver culture. Given the opportunity, he could welcome, the opportunity to violate the Commons Social Contract, and overconsume and overbreed. [63.2] Leaver Defendant‘s cultural hierarchy identity could, for example, be: (1) Aquilibriæx Lifestyle aspirations: Taker, (2) Nation: American, (3) Ethnicity: Irish, (4) Religion: Catholic, (5) Gender: Bisexual, (6) Employee: US Army, (7) Social: Platoon. Each sub-culture is embedded in a hierarchy of individual identity cultural values. 
Cultural Hierarchy‟s Relevant Cultural Legal Principles:
[64.1] Leaver Defendant‘s Cultural values towards the alleged criminal issues: ‗theft of property‘ ‗aiding the enemy‘ ‗insubordination‘. [64.2] Leaver Defendant could argue – for example – that in fact the Taker‘s commitment to criminalizing theft of property is not consistent, in terms of the Taker US Governments failure to prosecute the theft of property of (a) land from the Indians upon colonization, (b) legalizing of theft from taxpayers by Banks and
Politicians handing out ‗bailouts‘, (c) invading Iraq and Afghanistan under the pretence of thieving their natural resources; and so on. 
Defendant‟s Cultural Values Include Alleged Crimes as Criminal Acts:
[65.1] It would appear both the parties recognize the legal concepts of property and theft of property, although they may have different interpretations as to whether their cultural values of theft of property are consistent, i.e. whether they hold their own elite cultural members accountable for such practices, or whether the alleged ‗theft of property‘ is simply a law which is used to deny the proles access to the property which has already been stolen by the elite, of the particular culture. 
Cultural Values are mutually Irreconcilable:
[66.1] If – for example – the alleged criminal act is ‗hate speech‘, which is only recognized by one culture, who adhere to cultural values of sycophancy and political correct arsekissing; other cultures who are committed to encouraging freedom of speech, no matter how insulting, would not have cultural laws, or cultural values, recognizing criminal acts, such as ‗hate speech‘. [66.2] In such a case, it would be more respectful to both culture‘s to encourage Separatist Multiculturalism, where both parties are capable of practicing their distinct ‗Sycophancy‘ and ‗Brutal Honesty‘ cultural values, as opposed to coercing these cultures into a Melting Pot Multicultural venue, where one culture‘s values are coerced and forced down the other cultural members throats. Both cultures can consequently be encouraged to come to agreements how their separatist Multiculturalism shall be practiced and implemented. [66.3] So far, it appears that both parties are firmly committed to Bullshit the Public Relations Image management, equally intent on shoving their Bullshit the Public Relations Image management practices particularly down the throats of cultures who prefer brutal honesty. So their actions breed more and more Breiviks, as the scarcity induced crisis of conflict Iceberg drifts ever closer and closer. 
How & Why Criminal Act Contributed to Intra-Cultural Equity:
[67.1] Examples and evidence how or why the alleged criminal act, acting in accordance to the parties cultural legal principles, contributed to greater intraspecies equity harmony, or discord , between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, cultural, religious and ideological conflicts. [67.2] The Defendant could for example argue that exposing the hypocrisy of the elite of his own employment/nation/religion‘s culture, contributes to Transparent Simple Clarity, between all cultures. Or that he was motivated to expose the deception of his National Cultural Political elite‘s cultural ‗Duhmockery‘ colonization of new markets, on behalf of the profits of multinational corporations.43 [67.3] The Plaintiff could argue that the Defendant‘s alleged ‗Peacenik‘ motives are not, and were not, sincere, and most certainly not actions on behalf of Transparent 43
Žižek, Slavoj (1997)
Simple Clarity, between all cultures. The Defendant is not sincerely committed to addressing resource scarcity, due to overpopulation and overconsumption. The Defendants motives were purely AnthroCorpocentric, demonstrated by his total failure to distance himself from the worlds most prized AnthroCorpocentric pseudopeacenik prize: the Nobel ‗War is Peace‘ Whore Prize. 
The Amici respectfully urges the Court to:
Defend the Constitution as a Sustainable Social Contract, to stand with the small pockets of Leaver Conscious Sustainable Security (Overpopulation and Overconsumption induced Scarcity causes resource war Conflict) Military Doctrine Believers; against America‘s domestic Consumption and Breeding War Taker enemies: AnthroCorpocentric Juristic Despots and pseudo-Peaceniks / War is Peace Whores44.
Take a stand against the political, academic and legal captains of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Titanic, refusal to recognize that their legislative/adjudicative freedoms are limited by the laws of nature/ecology and human nature; are driving SV AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Titanic full speed to their ‗suicide pact‘ collision with the Laws of Ecology and Human Nature, their scarcity induced crisis of conflict Iceberg. ********
Other Examples of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Transformations to Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence: 
Rights of nature in legal history:
[69.1] In his famous work, 'Should Trees Have Standing?' Justice Stone presented the case for conferring legal personality and rights on the environment. As Stone explained, as a rights-holder the natural object would ―have a legally recognised worth and dignity in its own right, and not merely to serve as a means to benefit ‗us‘....‖. To achieve rights-holder status, the natural object must satisfy three criteria: [First], that the thing can institute legal actions at its behest; second, that in determining the granting of legal relief, the court must take injury to it into account; and third, that relief must run to the benefit of it.45
In Valour of Ignorance, Homer Lea‗s perspective of a nations traitor enemies, are (I) those ―high or low‖ who only regard [the Nation] in a parasitical sense, as a land to batten on and grow big in, whose resources are not to be developed and conserved for the furtherance of the Republic‗s greatness, but only to satisfy the larval greed of those who subsist upon it‗s fatness; and (II) International Arbitrationists and Disarmamentists who advocate on behalf of disarmament and arbitration without understanding the true origins of war: ―Only when arbitration is able to unravel the tangled skein of crime & hypocrisy among individuals can it be extended to communities & nations. As nations are only man in the aggregate, they are the aggregate of his crimes and deception and depravity, and so long as these constitute the basis of individual impulse, so long will they control the acts of nations.‖ 45 Stone CD, Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects. Southern California Law Review 1972;45:450; W Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1974) p 8 44
[69.2] In his dissenting opinion in the landmark environmental law case, Sierra Club v. Morton46, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), Justice William O. Douglas argued that "inanimate objects" should have standing to sue in court: The critical question of "standing" [Footnote 2/1] would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated before federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers, and where injury is the subject of public outrage. Contemporary public concern for protecting nature's ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation. See Stone, Should Trees Have Standing? -- Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects, 45 S.Cal.L.Rev. 450 (1972). This suit would therefore be more properly labeled as Mineral King v. Morton. Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction found useful for maritime purposes. [Footnote 2/2] The corporation sole -- a creature of ecclesiastical law -- is an acceptable adversary, and large fortunes ride on its cases. [Footnote 2/3] The ordinary corporation is a "person" for purposes of the adjudicatory processes, whether it represents proprietary, spiritual, aesthetic, or charitable causes. [Footnote 2/4] So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes -fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it. Those people who have a meaningful relation to that body of water -- whether it be a fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist, or a logger -- must be able to speak for the values which the river represents, and which are threatened with destruction. Mineral King is doubtless like other wonders of the Sierra Nevada such as Tuolumne Meadows and the John Muir Trail. Those who hike it, fish it, hunt it, camp in it, frequent it, or visit it merely to sit in solitude and wonderment are legitimate spokesmen for it, whether they may be few or many. Those who have that intimate relation with the inanimate object about to be injured, polluted, or otherwise despoiled are its legitimate spokesmen. 46
[..] The voice of the inanimate object, therefore, should not be stilled. That does not mean that the judiciary takes over the managerial functions from the federal agency. It merely means that, before these priceless bits of Americana (such as a valley, an alpine meadow, a river, or a lake) are forever lost or are so transformed a to be reduced to the eventual rubble of our urban environment, the voice of the existing beneficiaries of these environmental wonders should be heard. [Footnote 2/8] Perhaps they will not win. Perhaps the bulldozers of "progress" will plow under all the aesthetic wonders of this beautiful land. That is not the present question. The sole question is, who has standing to be heard? Those who hike the Appalachian Trail into Sunfish Pond, New Jersey, and camp or sleep there, or run the Allagash in Maine, or climb the Guadalupes in West Texas, or who canoe and portage the Quetico Superior in Minnesota, certainly should have standing to defend those natural wonders before courts or agencies, though they live 3,000 miles away. Those who merely are caught up in environmental news or propaganda and flock to defend these waters or areas may be treated differently. That is why these environmental issues should be tendered by the inanimate object itself. Then there will be assurances that all of the forms of life [Footnote 2/9] which it represents will stand before the court -- the pileated woodpecker as well as the coyote and bear, the lemmings as well a the trout in the streams. Those inarticulate members of the ecological group cannot speak. But those people who have so frequented the place as to know its values and wonders will be able to speak for the entire ecological community.
 New Zealand Grants a River the Rights of Personhood: Agreement entitles Whanganui River to legal identity47: The Whanganui River will become an legal entity and have a legal voice under a preliminary agreement signed between Whanganui River iwi and the Crown tonight. This is the first time a river has been given a legal identity. A spokesman for the Minister of Treaty Negotiations said Whanganui River will be recognised as a person when it comes to the law - "in the same way a company is, which will give it rights and interests". The agreement was signed on behalf of Whanganui iwi by Brendan Puketapu of the Whanganui River Maori Trust, which represents a group of iwi along the river, and the Crown in Parliament this evening.
Under the agreement the river is given legal status under the name Te Awa Tupua - two guardians, one from the Crown and one from a Whanganui River iwi, will be given the role of protecting the river.
Legalizing Sustainability? Santa Monica Recognizes Rights of Nature48: On April 9 (2013), the City Council of Santa Monica voted 7-0 to adopt the state’s first ever Bill of Rights for Sustainability, directing the city to ―recognize the rights of people, natural communities and ecosystems to exist, regenerate and flourish.‖ Santa Monica joins dozens of U.S. communities, the nations of Ecuador, Bolivia, and New Zealand in the fast-growing movement for Nature’s Rights. With the passage of this ordinance, Santa Monica challenges the legal status of nature as merely property, and empowers the City or residents to bring suit on behalf of local ecosystems. While not eliminating property ownership, these new laws seek to eliminate the authority of a property owner to destroy entire ecosystems that exist and depend upon that property. The ordinance also mandates the City to follow the Sustainable City Plan as a guide for decision-making to maximize environmental benefits and reduce or eliminate negative environmental impacts.
Other American Cities/Counties Drafting Rights of Nature Statutes:
[72.1] ―Nature rights‖ has been legally adopted in more than 20 American municipalities — including Pittsburgh, which included the rights of nature in an ordinance preventing natural gas fracking within the city‘s boundaries. [72.2] Boulder, Colorado49: ―Boulder Rights of Nature is working to get rights of nature established as law in one or more jurisdictions in Boulder County and elsewhere. (For details of our draft ordinance, click here.) In this work we are aligned with hundreds of community organizations across the country. We believe that living in balance and harmony with nature is essential for life, liberty, and well being for all species, and for the integral functioning of the ecological systems that give life to all species. We want a positive future, not an impoverished one.‖ 
Bolivia and Ecuador: Rights of Nature Constitutional Amendments:
[73.1] The inclusion of "Buen Vivir" and Rights of Nature in the Ecuadorian constitution was helped along in largely due to the increased influence of indigenous activist groups in the political realm. After several years of worsening economic and environmental conditions, uprisings from various indigenous communities in, who found themselves receiving less support from the state, while simultaneously their land was being increasingly encroached upon by oil companies, put more attention on 48 49
the concerns of the indigenous community. After historically being excluded from the political process, indigenous groups, especially concerned about the worsening environmental devastation of the extraction business and global climate change, started social movements aimed at creating a new approach to development that would protect the environment and harmonize its relationship with people. CONAIE (National Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador), the largest federation of indigenous movements, encompassing 14 of the nation's indigenous groups, and other groups focused on social justice began lobbying for a new constitution that incorporated recognition of the nation's indigenous groups, their language, culture, history, and land rights, and inherently their concepts of sumak kawsay and Pachamama, essentially meaning "Mother Nature."50 [73.2] On April 15, 2007, over 80% of Ecuadorians voted in favor of calling a new assembly, thanks in large part to the support of indigenous communities. Indigenous groups had been pressuring for a new, more inclusive constitution for years, and were therefore actively involved in the drafting process. Alberto Acosta, the elected Assembly President, pledged to make the assembly more inclusive and incorporate the concerns of the indigenous into the constitution. In the end, a few indigenous representatives were elected to the assembly.51 To create a constitution based on the principles of "Buen Vivir," the Constitutional Assembly, with the advice of the Pachamama Alliance, enlisted the help of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) to draft language for the new provisions of the constitution detailing the Rights of Nature.52 [73.3] On April 10, 2008, with 91 votes out of 130, the Constitutional Assembly approved Article 10 for inclusion in the new constitution. On June 7, Articles 71 through 74, compiling the Rights of Nature, were presented and debated on. 53 [73.4] On September 28, 2008, a mandatory referendum was held to vote on the new constitution, where the adoption of the constitution was approved by 65% of voters.54 
Wild Law Movement: Rights of Nature55:
Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature56 & Wild Law UK57:
Becker, Marc. 2011 Correa, Indigenous Movements, and the Writing of a New Constitution in Ecuador. Latin American Perspectives 38(1):47-62. 51 Becker, Marc. 2011 Correa, Indigenous Movements, and the Writing of a New Constitution in Ecuador. Latin American Perspectives 38(1):47-62. 52 Fundaci贸n Pachamama (FP). 2011 Recognizing Rights for Nature in the Ecuadorian Constitution. http://www.derechosdelanaturaleza.org/website/files/2011/01/Recogniting-Rights-for-Nature-in-the-EcuadorianConstitution-Fundacion-Pachamama1.pdf 53 Fundaci贸n Pachamama (FP). 2011 Recognizing Rights for Nature in the Ecuadorian Constitution. http://www.derechosdelanaturaleza.org/website/files/2011/01/Recogniting-Rights-for-Nature-in-the-EcuadorianConstitution-Fundacion-Pachamama1.pdf 54 Smith, Gar. 2009 In Ecuador, Trees Now Have Rights. Earth Island Journal 23(4):15-15. 55 http://www.wildlawuk.org/rights-of-nature.html 56 http://therightsofnature.org/learn-about-rights-of-nature/ 57 http://www.wildlawuk.org/rights-of-nature.html 50
Rights of Nature is the recognition and honoring that Nature has rights. It is the recognition that our ecosystems – including trees, oceans, animals, mountains – have rights just as human beings have rights. Rights of Nature is about balancing what is good for human beings against what is good for other species, what is good for the planet as a world. It is the holistic recognition that all life, all ecosystems on our planet are deeply intertwined. Rather than treating nature as property under the law, rights of nature acknowledges that nature in all its life forms has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles. And we – the people – have the legal authority and responsibility to enforce these rights on behalf of ecosystems. The ecosystem itself can be named as the defendant. For indigenous cultures around the world recognizing rights of nature is simply what is so. All life, including human life, are deeply connected. Decisions and values are based on what is good for the whole. Nonetheless, for millennia legal systems around the world have treated land and nature as ―property‖. Laws and contracts are written to protect the property rights of individuals, corporations and other legal entities. As such environmental protection laws actually legalize environmental harm by regulating how much polution or destruction of nature can occur within the law. Under such law, nature and all of its non-human elements have no standing.
Pennsylvania Judge: Corporations Are not People:
 A Pennsylvania Judge took a step in the direction of Equlibriaex jurisprudence, in terms of confronting the excesses of Corporate Personhood: by ruling (PDF58) that ―In the absence of state law, business entities are nothing.‖ Put differently Corporations are not the same as persons, and not entitled to Person‘s Privacy Rights. [77.1] In the landmark ruling, President Judge Debbie O‘Dell-Seneca of the Washington County Court of Common Pleas denied the corporation‘s request on the basis that the Pennsylvania Constitution only protects the rights of people, not business entities. [77.2] The ruling was delivered in a case brought by several Western Pennsylvania newspapers which sought the release of a sealed settlement agreement between a family claiming to be affected by water contamination from gas fracking, and Range Resources – one of the largest gas extraction corporations in the state.
[77.3] Range Resources argued that unsealing the settlement agreement would violate the corporation‘s constitutional right to privacy under the Pennsylvania Constitution. [77.4] In the ruling, Judge O‘Dell-Seneca declared that ―in the absence of state law, business entities are nothing.‖ If corporations could claim rights independent from people, she asserted, then ―the chattel would become the co-equal to its owners, the servant on par with its masters, the agent the peer of its principals, and the legal fabrication superior to the law that created and sustains it.‖ [77.5] She further found that ―the constitution vests in business entities no special rights that the laws of this Commonwealth cannot extinguish. In sum, [corporations] cannot assert [constitutional privacy] protections because they are not mentioned in its text.‖ [77.6] Judge O‘Dell-Seneca cited sections of the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution in support of her contention that corporations were never intended to be constitutionally protected ―persons.‖ She declared that ―an even more dubious proposition is that the framers of the Constitution of 1776, given their egalitarian sympathies, would have concerned themselves with vesting, for the first time in history, indefeasible rights in such entities. . . that language extends only to natural persons.‖ [77.7] Finally, she tackled the very nature of corporations by declaring that ―it is axiomatic that corporations, companies, and partnerships have no ‗spiritual nature,‘ ‗feelings,‘ ‗intellect,‘ ‗beliefs,‘ ‗thoughts,‘ ‗emotions,‘ or ‗sensations,‘ because they do not exist in the manner that humankind exists. . . They cannot be ‗let alone‘ by government, because businesses are but grapes, ripe upon the vine of the law, that the people of this Commonwealth raise, tend, and prune at their pleasure and need.‖ [77.8] The court records unsealed by the ruling reveal that Range Resources, and the other corporations which were the subject of the complaint, paid out $750,000 to settle claims of water contamination caused by fracking. [77.9] Pennsylvania Court Deals Blow to Secrecy-Obsessed Fracking Industry: Corporations Not The Same As Persons With Privacy Rights59: ―The ruling represents the first crack in the judicial armor that has been so meticulously welded together by major corporations,‖ said Thomas Linzey, executive director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, which has helped 150 communities in eight states adopt Community Bill of Rights to limit corporate powers. ―It affirms what many communities already know, that change only occurs when people begin to openly question and challenge legal doctrines that have been treated as sacred by most lawyers and judges.‖ But where the ruling is likely to make the biggest waves is in the so-called corporate personhood debate. The Judge spent more than a third of her 32-page decision saying why corporations and business 59
entities were not the same as people under Pennsylvania’s constitution, and why, for the purposes of doing business in the state, that federal court rulings that blur the rights of people and businesses do not apply. ―This court ruling is a significant development for the growing movement to restore democracy to the people,‖ said John Bonifaz, the co-founder and executive director of Free Speech For People, a national campaign launched on the day of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. ―The ruling is the newest example of dissent within the judiciary to the fabricated doctrine of corporate constitutional rights. It will be held up for years to come as a powerful defense of the promise of American selfgovernment: of, by, and for the people.‖ Judge O’Dell Seneca cited the text of the 1776 Pennsylvania constitution, the history of its various provisions, related recent case law from other states and policy considerations, and rejected the various claims by corporate lawyers that ―made no attempt to parse those texts and construe them in light of the full document.‖ The Court wrote, ―Nothing in that jurisprudence indicates that that right [of privacy] is available to business entities.‖
Dated at George, South Africa: 12 April 2013
Lara Johnstone, Member: Radical Honesty Culture & Radical Honoursty Culture Founder: Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party, CommonSism: Common Sense Laws for a Sustainable Commons & Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence.
Radical Honoursty Culture Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party CommonSism: Common Sense Guerrylla Laws for a Sustainable Commons AEquilibriaex: balanced Eco/Anthropocentric law www.guerrylla -law.co.nr
14 April 2013 William Saunderson-Meyer Thought Leader, Jaundiced Eye: The Weekend Argus, The Citizen, and Weekend Witness. @thejaundicedeye. Ref: SA Legal Society Corruption1
CC: Bar Assoc & Legal Societies CC: Political Parties CC: International Bar Assoc CC: HRW & Amnesty Intn‟l
Dear Mr. Saunderson-Meyer, RE: SA’s Legal Corruption (denial of Legal Representation and access to courts to RH culture) is endorsed by SA Political Parties, Media Editors, International Bar Association, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, SA Judicial Service Commission, Tutu, Mandela & De Klerk. Thank you for your article exposing South Africa‟s endemic legal corruption: Just Trust Me, I’m a lawyer2. Please find herewith a list of Legal Corruption exposed by Radical Honesty culture: On 11 January 2013, I filed a single complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, against Norway‟s Legal Corruption in denying Anders Breivik a Free and Fair Treason/Necessity Trial: (a) Discrimination on 24 August 2012 by Oslo District Court: Judge Wenche Arntzen, in Norway v. Anders Breivik‟s Necessity Judgement; (b) Discrimination and Denied Right to an Effective Remedy: by (i) Supreme Court: Secretary General Gunnar Bergby: 10 September 2012 Decision; (ii) Parliamentary Ombudsman: Head of Division: Berit Sollie: 15 November 2012 Ruling. On 07 April 2013, correspondence from European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Registrar: Legal Secretary: Ragna Bjarnadottir, dated 05 March 2013 acknowledged receipt of my complaint, and informed me of the Case number and processing procedures: Application no. 16325/13: Johnstone v. Norway3.
ThoughtLeader: Just Trust Me, I‟m a lawyer http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/williamsaundersonmeyer/2013/04/13/just-trust-me-im-a-lawyer/ 2 ThoughtLeader: Just Trust Me, I‟m a lawyer http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/williamsaundersonmeyer/2013/04/13/just-trust-me-im-a-lawyer/ 3 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/eu-court-human-rights.html 1
PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539 * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954
Comparatively consider the following experience with SA Concourt Registrar and South African Legal Establishment:
 Concourt: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v. Afriforum, et al: Afriforum v. Malema et al: Equality Court (07-2010 EQ JHB) to & Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA 815/11): Concourt Justice’s TRC Fraud Corruption: On 27 November 2012, I filed a Pro Se application for Review of the Supreme Court of Appeal „Kill Boere Hate Speech‟ Mediation Agreement entered into by and between: ANC, Mr. Malema, Afriforum and TAU-SA. The Respondents are: Afriforum, Transvaal Agricultural Union, Julius Malema, African National Congress, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Former Presidents Nelson Mandela and FW de Klerk, CRL Rights Commission, Norwegian Nobel Committee: Chair, Central Intelligence Agency: Director, and David Petraeus. 1: Agreement is Unconstitutional due to being culturally vague: My Review argument was that the Agreement is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, in that South Africa has many different cultures, with many perspectives on the „Kill Boere‟ issue, and the Mediation Agreement pretends South Africa is one happy monoculture family. The Mediation Agreement does not specify which cultures it is referring to. 2: Agreement ignores SA’s TRC Fraud Failure to Clearly Define ‘Reconciliation’ and address Ecocentric Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict Issues: Additionally, the Mediation Agreement had totally censored and ignored the evidence submitted to the Equality Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, exposing South Africa‟s fraudulent Truth and Reconciliation Commission process and a country‟s legal establishment who refuse to clarify what their legal definition is for „Reconciliation‟4, and the TRC‟s “failure to investigate demographic youth bulge5 and Declaring the Truth and Reconciliation Report‟s failure to provide clear and concise cultural/religious definition of „reconciliation‟ -- i.e. whether Lutheran Christian, African, Boer Afrikaner, Kairos Black Liberation Theology, Frantz Fanon Liberation, Radical Honesty, etc -- to be (a) a failure of the requirements of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995, Section 2 (3)(1) “The objectives of the Commission shall be to promote national unity and reconciliation in a spirit of understanding which transcends the conflicts and divisions of the past.. “; and (b) an example of Archbishop Tutu‟s description of how vague definitions (in this case not even a vague definition) enable legal tyranny. For example:  War is Peace Whores consider „reconciliation‟ to be a tool of pretend problem solving manipulation, which can be used as a great PR publicity stunt to colonize ignorant minds into blind subservient belief in the „reconciliation‟ moral supremacy narrative. Reconciliation is achieved for as long as the subservient followers are in a state of moral supremacy cognitive dissonance, where objective or subjective enquiry is suspended, but if applied would reveal their belief in their state of moral supremacy reconciliation to be false, but lack the integrity and courage to admit they are addicted to being „morally superior‟, due to censoring all evidence exposing their two faced hypocrisy.  Lutheran Christians consider „reconciliation‟ to be a voluntary inner spiritual process, whereby reconciliation is achieved via sincere dialogue and a change of heart and perspective.  Kairos / Black Liberation Theology Christians consider „reconciliation‟ to be a socialist economic process, whereby reconciliation is only achieved once socialism is forcefully implemented.  Frantz Fanon Liberation Theologists consider „reconciliation‟ to be a physically violent process of „liberating‟ the „colonized mind‟ by violence „on the rotting corpse of the settler‟. Reconciliation occurs once all the settlers corpses are dead and rotting.  Radical Honesty is a non-violent Fanon process, where reconciliation is a psychological and sensate physical experience of releasing of anger and resentments. It is the liberation of both the settler and the colonized minds, by release of both of their suppressed violence, not physically, but verbally: face to face, through expressions of their resentments and appreciations, until all suppressed sensate anger is released. Radical Honesty forgiveness occurs when two former enemies sit across from each other, and have verbally liberated their pent up sensate anger and rage, the body is in a 4
„population production‟ breeding war6 acts of war as contributory factors to Apartheid violence, to be a failure of the requirements of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995.” 3. Any ‘Peace’ Agreement that Ignores Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict is not a Credible Peace Agreement: Declaring that in our Post Peak NNR world, Sustainable Security requires seriously confronting Scarcity as a Cause of Violent Conflict, and to recommend that if the South African Government and its „Peace Leaders‟ are sincerely committed to implementing peaceful coexistent relations between races, cultures and religions; the SAG should include consideration of the role of overpopulation and overconsumption as root cause factors of resource scarcity pushing society to conflict and war. 4. Alternatively, to order all South African’s to prepare for SA’s Race War in the impending Peak NNR Crisis of Conflict: If South Africa‟s TRC Fraud Fragile Egos are more important than confronting the „Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict‟ factor; all South African‟s should prepare themselves for the impending Race and Class War Consequences of the Peak NNR Crisis of Conflict. On 29 November 2012, Concourt Registrar refused to issue my application a case number, or process it, unless I met certain „Rules of the Court‟ (PDF7), which include filing 25 printed hard copies via land mail, and finding legal representation. On 06 December 2012, I filed “Appeal of Concourt Registrar’s Refusal to Process My Concourt Application: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum et al” (PDF8), to the Concourt Justices, via the Registrar, with orders confirming that: (A) I am unable to find a lawyer to represent me as member of the Radical Honesty culture; (B) a Pro Se Ecocentric reduction of requirement for 25 hardcopies; (C) Abuse of Resources is not „normal‟ behaviour for an Ecocentric PP4PP, (D) Confirmation all parties as being served, except for David Petraeus; and (E) Registrar‟s Discrimination against Pro Se Radical Honesty applicants to be overturned. Therein I request leniency from the Justices for these „Rules of Court‟, in that I am a Pro Se Radical Honesty PP4PP culture applicant, i.e: (A) I cannot find any lawyer to represent me, I have not been able to find any lawyer to represent me for the past ten years, because there are no lawyers or Advocates in South Africa who are willing to represent me, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, and (B) all courts provide state of released sensate tension, similar to the emotions released in a sexual orgasm, irrespective of however long it takes. Reconciliation occurs when the fragile ego mind is no longer colonized by the suppressed anger in the body. 5 Demographics & Violence: Youth Bulges: Numerous reports provide details how population age structures have significant impacts on a countries stability, governance, economic development and social well-being. Put differently, countries with large populations of idle young men, known as youth bulges, account for 70 – 90 percent of all civil conflicts. Additionally a wealth of historical studies indicates that cycles of rebellion and military campaigns in the early modern and modern world tended to coincide with periods when young adults comprised an unusually large proportion of the population. Youth Bulge Reports: (1) The Shape of Things to Come: Why Age Structure Matters to a Safer More Equitable World, by Population Action International; (2) YouthQuake: Population, fertility and environment in the 21st Century, by Optimum Population Trust. 6 “We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc., you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population an act of war.” - Former Municipal Court Judge Jason G. Brent 7 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-29_concourt-registrar_letter_to_lara_johnstone.pdf 8 http://sqswans.weebly.com/06-dec-app-reg.html
Pro Se applicants with more lenient rules, than those required of applicants who have legal representation; (C) my Ecocentric Pay the Price 4 Peace Peacenik (PP4PP) lifestyle means that I make sure that my consumption and procreation lifestyle does not exceed the carrying capacity of South Africa; (D) the Registrar appears to be discriminating against me, either because I am a Pro Se applicant, or because I am a member of the Radical Honesty culture, or both.
Denied Cultural Legal Representation: SA Bar Ass’s & Law Societies: I contacted the following Law Societies and Bar Associations to enquire whether they knew of any lawyer willing to represent a member of the Radical Honesty culture: Legal Aid: Chair Vidhu Vedalankar (PDF9) | Jhb Bar Ass: Pro Bono Chair: (PDF10) | Cape Law Society (PDF11) | Cape Bar Council (PDF12) | Free State Law Society (PDF13) | Free State Soc of Advocates (PDF14) | General Counsel of Bar of SA (PDF15) | KwaZulu Natal Law Society (PDF16) | Law Society of South Africa (PDF17) | Pretoria Society of Advocates (PDF18) | Soc of Adv KwaZulu Natal - Dbn (PDF19) | Soc of Adv KwaZulu Natal - Pmb (PDF20) | Northern Province Law Society: M van Niekerk (PDF21). None of them were able to inform me of any lawyer within their law society/bar association in South Africa, who is willing to represent a person from the Radical Honesty culture, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture.
Concourt Justice’s TRC Fraud Corruption Endorsed by SA Media: I also submitted a Press Release to the SA Press Association (SAPA) Wire, to attempt to find a Radical Honesty lawyer (SAPA and SA Editors refused to publish it, saying it is „not news‟, that I am unable to find a lawyer to represent a member of the Radical Honesty culture). SAPA published the Press Release to their „news wire‟, but did not write a SAPA news story about it, which they generally do. Lawyers do not read the „news wire‟, they read the newspapers. I telephoned SAPA to find out why they did not write a story about it, whereupon the SAPA Journalist informed me that it was “not news”, that a member of the Radical Honesty culture cannot find a lawyer and is denied access to SA court‟s. When I asked why other SA media publications did not publish it, she said she thought, they also probably think it is “not news”.
http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-29_legal_aid-vidhu_vedalankar.pdf http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_g_jhb_bar_assoc_-_pf_louw.pdf 11 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_cape_law_society.pdf 12 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/_12-11-30_cape_bar_council.pdf 13 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_free_state_law_society.pdf 14 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_free_state_soc_of_advocates.pdf 15 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_general_counsel_of_bar_of_sa_-_exec_sec.pdf 16 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_h_kzn_law_society.pdf 17 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_law_society_of_south_africa.pdf 18 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_pretoria_society_of_advocates.pdf 19 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_c_adv-soc-kzn-dbn.pdf 20 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_b_adv-soc-kzn-pmb.pdf 21 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-1206_concourt_justices_encl_i_law_soc_of_n_prov_m_van_niekerk.pdf 9
I then wrote an email to all of the Editors, asking them whether they “believe that the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court, is “not news”?” None of them responded and none of them published a story to inform SA lawyers that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court.
Concourt Justice’s TRC Fraud Corruption Endorsed by CRL Rights Commission: On 11 December 2012, I filed two complaints with the CRL Rights Commission (Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities) against the SA Constitutional Court Registrar (PDF22) and a dozen media Editors (PDF23) in that they discriminate against the – Tourette Syndrome like – Radical Honesty culture24. Both complaints to CRL Rights Commission were dismissed by Mrs. K Makgoba, endorsing:
the denial of cultural legal representation, and access to courts, to members of the Radical Honesty culture, and (b) the South African Media‟s discrimination against Members of the Radical Honesty culture, by refusing to report the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court. (Ref: 9/1/1/1/46)
the Constitutional Court Registrar‟s position that: South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures „Rules of Court‟ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures „Rules of Court‟ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18). (Ref: 9/1/1/1/49)
I filed appeals of both decisions to the CRL Rights Commission Chairperson: Reverent Mabuza who has not acknowledged receipt, nor responded to the appeals. (06 February 2013: Ref: 9/1/1/1/46: SAPA & SA Media; 18 February 2013: Ref: 9/1/1/1/49: SA Concourt Registrar). http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-11_crlrightscomm_complaint_concourt_registrar.pdf http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-11_crlrightscomm_complaint_sapa_-_sa_media_encla.pdf 24 SA Media, Concourt & Lawyers Discriminate Against – Tourette Syndrome like -- Radical Honesty Culture http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-894174 22 23
Concourt Justice’s TRC Fraud Corruption Endorsed by IBA, Human Rights Watch & Amnesty International: On 12 December 2012, I wrote a letter to Mark Ellis, the Executive Director of the International Bar Association; requesting the IBA to provide Independent Observation and Written Confirmation that (I) the SA Concourt refuses to process -- or provide written reasons for their refusal -- a Pro Se application, from a member of the Radical Honesty culture, (II) who is unable to find a lawyer in South Africa, to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture; (III) South African media believe it is „not news‟ that a member of the Radical Honesty culture is unable to find a lawyer in South Africa. On 07 February 2013, I also filed requests to Amnesty International (PDF 25) and Human Rights Watch (PDF26), to “Take Notice & Provide Independent Observation of my Radical Honesty culture appeal of South African Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (CRL Rights Comm) Ruling to Endorse Denying me Access to Legal Representation & Courts, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in current Concourt case: Alien v. Afriforum et al (CRL Ref: 9/1/1/1/46: RH v SAPA & SA Editors)”. On 19 February 2013, I filed a reminder and update to Human Rights Watch27 and Amnesty International28. I also filed a request with the ISRCL: International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law29: Request ISRCL Take Notice & Provide Independent Observation and monitoring of Ref: 9/1/1/1/49: Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture v. SA Concourt Registrar.
Concourt Justice’s TRC Fraud Corruption Endorsed by Judicial Service Commission: Copies of all aforementioned documents have been provided to the Judicial Service Commission.
Concourt Justice’s TRC Fraud Corruption Endorsed by Afriforum, TAUSA, ANC, Tutu, Mandela and De Klerk: Copies of all aforementioned documents have been provided to all respondent parties, which include: Afriforum, Transvaal Agricultural Union, Julius Malema, African National Congress, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Former Presidents Nelson Mandela and FW de Klerk, CRL Rights Commission, Norwegian Nobel Committee: Chair, et al.
sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-02-07_amnesty-international_ind-monitor-observ_crlr-comp_encl.pdf sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-02-07_human-rights-watch_ind-monitor-observ_crlrc_enc.pdf 27 http://sqswans.weebly.com/1/post/2013/02/130219_hrw-crl.html 28 http://sqswans.weebly.com/1/post/2013/02/130219_ai-crl.html 29 http://sqswans.weebly.com/1/post/2013/02/130219_incd-crl1.html 25 26
None of South Africa‟s „Human Rights‟ and „anti-apartheid‟ activists have so far objected to the Concourt Justice‟s TRC Fraud corruption.
Concourt Justice’s TRC Fraud Corruption Endorsed by Tutu and Templeton Prize Judges: On 04 April 2013, I submitted various questions30 to Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the Templeton Prize Judges, regarding Tutu & SA's Censorship of TRC Fraud. 1. Please clarify in writing whether you believe the Templeton Judges are aware of the following Radical Honoursty TRC Fraud Fact Censored by Mandela, Tutu, ANC and AntiApartheid Movement? 2. If the Templeton Judges are not aware of the following Radical Honoursty TRC Fraud Fact Censored by Mandela, Tutu, ANC and Anti-Apartheid Movement, why are they ignorant of them? 3. If you (a) continue your policy of endorsing the censorship of the Radical Honoursty TRC Fraud Fact Censored by Mandela, Tutu, ANC and Anti-Apartheid Movement, by refusing to transparently inform the Templeton Judges why you endorse the Anti-Apartheid movement and Constitutional Courts censorship of Radical Honoursty culture allegations of TRC Fraud; and (b) the Templeton Judges endorse your lack of honour and actions of censorship of your involvement in TRC Fraud; we could fairly conclude that (c) You have been awarded the Multinational Corporate Resource and Cultural Imperialists Templeton Prize for excellence in House Nigger subservience to getting rid of Boer Anti-Imperialists, and making SA safe for ‘Compulsive Developmentism’ Imperialists (i) cultural colonization of indigenous cultures, and (ii) resource plundering? Radical Honoursty TRC Fraud Fact Censored by Mandela, Tutu, ANC and AntiApartheid Movement: Corrupt Censorship by SA Constitutional Court of Radical Honoursty culture’s Application for Review of South Africa’s TRC Fraud: Mandela, Tutu, the ANC & Anti-Apartheid movement have censored and silenced the only South African who – for the past 12 years – has exposed South Africa’s Anthropocentric and Ideologically biased TRC Fraud, and advocated on behalf of a brutally honest sincere and ecologically and scientifically credible Truth and Reconciliation Commission, focussed on exposing the underlying psychological, cultural, racial, Compulsive Development and Scarcity induced factors contributing to Apartheid’s Political violence. There was no response from Archbishop Tutu or the Templeton Prize Judges. On 05 April 2013, I submitted a follow-up statement31 to Archbishop Tutu and the Templeton Prize Judges: President Zuma urges Archbishop Tutu to continue ANC, Anti-Apartheid Movements Censorship of their TRC Fraud.; Tutu’s Ultimate Spiritual Test. There was no response. On 11 April 2013, I submitted a request32 to Professor Steven Gish: Dept: History & International Studies; Auburn University at Montgomery: Radical Honoursty Culture and TYGAE Request for Withdrawal of your Nomination of Desmond Tutu as Recipient of Templeton Prize, due to your (a) biographer conflict of interest, and (b) failure to http://sqswans.weebly.com/1/post/2013/04/130404_tutu-templeton1.html http://sqswans.weebly.com/1/post/2013/04/130405_zumatrcfraud1.html 32 http://sqswans.weebly.com/1/post/2013/04/130411_tututempgish.html 30 31
provide the evidence of Archbishop Tutu’s involvement in the cover-up and censorship of South Africa’s TRC Fraud. There has been no response.
 General Systemic Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Legal Corruption: On 12 April 2013, I submitted correspondence to the Judicial Service Commission, regarding the red herring endorsement of the censorship of the Fraud of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence from their „transformation‟ debate. (The Judicial Service Commission’s ‘transformation’ debate and Izak Smuts resignation is a red herring, obscuring the JSC’s ‘transformation’ agenda to (i) censor the Fraud and Failures of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence; while (ii) simply transforming South Africa’s Jurisprudence from a European Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric flavour to an African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric flavour. (Ref: White Men Can't Judge33; JSC in talks on transformation34; JSC's Izak Smuts resigns after transformation row35; Why I'm resigning from the JSC - Izak Smuts36.) Dated at George, South Africa: 14 April 2013
Lara Johnstone Member: Radical Honesty Culture Founder: Radical Honoursty Culture Founder: Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party Founder: CommonSism: Common Sense Laws for a Sustainable Commons Founder: Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence: Equal & Balanced Eco/Anthropocentric Law
http://www.citypress.co.za/news/white-men-cant-judge/ http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/JSC-in-talks-on-transformation-20130408 35 http://mg.co.za/article/2013-04-12-izak-smuts-resigns-after-transformation-row 36 http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=369581&sn=Detail&pid=71616 33 34
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COUR EUROPEENNE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME
Lara JOHNSTONE 16 Taaibos Ave George 6529 SOUTH AFRICA ECHR-LE 1.1R SCP/RBJ/osu Application no. 16325/13 Johnstone v. Norway _Date ojlodgiDgJQ)anualJ:'
5 March 2013
Dear Sir, I acknowledge receipt of your submissions concerning the above application. Your file has been given the above number. You must refer to it in any further correspondence relating to this case. In order to process your application more efficiently, please find enclosed a set of 10 barcode labels for your use exclusively in this case. If you send the Registry a letter or any other correspondence, please stick one of the barcode labels on the top right-hand corner of the first page of the correspondence. The Court will deal with the case as soon as practicable on the basis of the information and documents submitted by you. Please note that if you wish to send any documents in addition to your application, you should not send original documents as they will not be returned to you by the Court. The proceedings are primarily in writing and you will only be required to appear in person if the Comi invites you to do so. You will be informed of any decision taken by the Court. You should inform me of any change in your address. Furthermore, you should, of your own motion, inform the Court about any major developments regarding the above case, and submit any further relevant decisions of the domestic authorities. Please note that no acknowledgment will be made as to the receipt of subsequent correspondence. No telephone enquiries either please. If you wish to be assured that your letter is actually received by the Court then you should send it by recorded delivery with a prepaid acknowledgment of receipt form. Yours faithfully, For the Registrar
~~~ Ragna Bjarnadottir Legal Secretary Ene: Barcode labels ADRESSE
OF EUROPE I CONSEIL DE L'EUROPE
STRASBOURG Cedex, France
TI+33(0)388412018 F I +33 (0)3 88412730 www.echr.coe.lnt
SHARP PP4PP PO Box 5042 George East, 6539 Tel: (044) 870 7239 Cel: (071) 170 1954 06 December 2012 Concourt Justices c/o Registrar of the Constitutional Court: 1 Hospital Street, Braamfontein, Johannesburg Tel: (011) 359-7400 || Fax: (011) 339-5098 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
CC: Deputy Minister: Andries Nel, MP Private Bag X395, Pretoria, 0001 Tel: 012 - 406 4854 Fax: 012 - 406 4878 E-mail: email@example.com Priv. Sec: Ms. Joshna Govind (firstname.lastname@example.org) RE: Appeal of Concourt Registrar‟s Refusal to Process My Concourt Application: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum et al. At the 21st International Congress of the International Union of Judicial Officers (Sheriffs/Bailiffs)1, on 02 May 2012, the Deputy Minister of Justice stated that the justice system should aim to: (a) be just in the results it delivers; (b) be fair in the way it treats litigants; (c) offer appropriate procedures at a reasonable cost; (d) deal with cases with reasonable speed; (e) be understandable to those who use it; (f) be responsive to the needs of those who use it; (g) provide as much certainty as the nature of particular cases allows; and (h) be effective: adequately resourced and organised… and that the primary objective of the Civil Justice Reform Project (CJRP) is the simplification and harmonization of laws and rules to make justice easily and equally accessible to all, including and not limited to the following: (a) The effectiveness of the courts, their jurisdiction and capacity to deal with civil disputes; (b) Affordability and cost effectiveness; (d) Simplification of court procedures and processes; (e) Modernisation; the implementation of information technology initiatives for the civil justice system. Such initiatives to include the electronic filing of court documents, and electronic service of court processes (by fax, email, etc). Bearing those ‗justice system‘ principles in mind:
Address by Deputy Minister Andries Nel, MP on the occasion of the 21st International Congress of the International Union of Judicial Officers (Sheriffs/Bailiffs): 2 May 2012, Cape Town: ICC http://www.justice.gov.za/m_speeches/2012/20120502_dmin_uihj.html 1
On 27 November I filed a Pro Se (Radical Honesty invocation of cultural law) Application for Review to the Constitutional Court Registrar per electronic filing (per email), as well as one printed hardcopy per registered mail. On 28 November I telephoned the Registrar Ms. Stander with a request to provide me with a Case number for my application. She responded: Like any other court, this Court may only respond to an application properly lodged in terms of the Rules of this Court. The Rules require of you to lodge 25 hard copies at the Court. Lodging happens after the documents are properly served on all the Respondents. Email notification is not proper service. Respondent may confirmed receipt of documents. No Judgment from the other Courts are attached.
I responded by providing her with a copy of the SCA Judgement, and requested that she provide me with written reasons for her refusal to process my complaint on court letterhead. She provided such, subsequent to a request that was submitted to Concourt Director: Mr. Misser. (Annex A)
ORDERS REQUESTED: 1. Legal Aid: SA Lawyers decline to represent Radical Honesty culture 2. Registered Documents: 25 Copies: Request Environmental Justification for such Abuse of Resources 3. Radical Honesty Ecocentric ‗Normal‘ Electronic Service Filing to Respondents 4. Electronic Service Filing to Respondents Acknowledged as Received: Respondents 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 09, 10. 5. Request Orders for Respondents 08: CRL Rights Commission and 11: David Petraeus 6. Registrar‘s Refusal of Case Number indicates a Registrar‘s Office that discriminates at Pro Se and/or Radical Honesty culture Applicants.
 Legal Aid: SA Lawyers decline to represent Radical Honesty culture.
In accordance with the Registrar‘s suggestion on the issue of Legal Aid, I filed a request for Info2: Do you have any Advocates willing to serve as Legal Aid/Pro Bono Assistance of Counsel to a member of the Radical Honesty culture?, to the following Law Societies and Bar Associations: (a) Legal Aid: South Africa Ms. Vidhu Vedalankar (PDF3), (b) Jhb Bar Association: Pro Bono Committee: Chair: P F Louw SC (PDF4), (c) Pretoria Society of Advocates: Executive Secretary (PDF5) | KwaZulu-Natal: Pietermaritzburg Bar Council: Exec. Secretary (PDF6) | Society of Advocates KwaZulu-Natal (Durban) (PDF7) | Free State Soc. of Advocates: Executive Secretary (PDF8) | Cape Law Society: Director: Rampela William Mokoena (PDF9) | Free State Law Society: President: Mr. J Fouche (PDF 10) | Kwa Zulu Natal Law Society: Director: Gavin John (PDF11) | Law Society of South Africa: Co-Chairs: K. Govender & J Stemmett (PDF12) I also submitted the following request for info to Ms. Stander: ―Ms. Stander: Could you find out for me the answer: What if there are no lawyers in South Africa (as there have not been for the past 10 years), who are willing to represent someone from the Radical Honesty culture?‖ Pretoria Soc of Advocates: Adv. Francois Botes from the Pretoria Society of Advocates telephoned me on Sunday to state that he was not aware of any such Advocates, and agreed that an Attorney or Advocate was required to represent a client in accordance to their culture, but that he considered the matter to be more relevant to Johannesburg Society of Advocates. Soc of Advocates of Kwazulu Natal (PMB): M G Roberts SC, Chairman of the Society of Advocates of KwaZulu-Natal: Pietermaritzburg Bar, responded that he had placed the request up on the notice board. (Annex B). Soc of Advocates of Kwazulu Natal (Dbn): Adv LB Broster SC, responded on behalf of the Pro Bono Committee, stating it if the matter was approved for hearing by the Chief Justice, in terms of Rule 11, ―we can reconsider your application in the light of the directive. At this stage it would be premature to make any decision as to whether we can appoint an advocate to act on your behalf pro bono.‖ (Annex C)
http://sqswans.weebly.com/1/post/2012/11/121130_barlaw1.html http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-29_legal_aid-vidhu_vedalankar.pdf 4 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-29_jhb_bar_assoc_-_pro_bono_comm.pdf 5 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_pretoria_society_of_advocates.pdf 6 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_soc_of_adv_kwazulu_natal_-_pmb.pdf 7 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_soc_of_adv_kwazulu_natal_-_dbn.pdf 8 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_free_state_soc_of_advocates.pdf 9 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_cape_law_society.pdf 10 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_free_state_law_society.pdf 11 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_kwazulu_natal_law_society.pdf 12 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_law_society_of_south_africa.pdf 2 3
 Registered Documents: 25 Copies: Request Environmental Justification for such abuse of Resources? ORDER REQUESTED: The specific number of hardcopies required to be submitted to the Registrar, from a Pro Se applicant, and if more than one, the environmental justification therefore. United States, including US Supreme Court Rules of Court provide different – less burdensome – rules for individuals who file their applications Pro Se. My application is filed Pro Se, but Ms. Stander appears to consider that there are no less burdensome rules in South African courts for individuals who file Pro Se. For example: The United States Supreme Court requires 40 hardcopies of applications, printed within specific ‗booklet‘ specifications for normal applications, whereas individuals filing In Forma Pauperis/Pro Se are only required to submit 10 hardcopies, which can be done in normal A4 printed style; and prisoners are only expected to submit one hard copy, which can even be written in pencil. Secondly, as my application clearly states, I requested ―permission to invoke13 cultural law14 in S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18; to enable the Applicant to honour the duty and responsibility to uphold the -- Pay-Price-4-Peace Peacenik (PP4PP) consumption and procreation15 cultural values -- principles upon which her Radical Honoursty culture is based.‖ As detailed in the application, I am a PP4PP (Pay the Price for Peace Peacenik) member of the Radical Honesty culture, who strives to live my consumption and procreation lifestyle in accordance to a carrying capacity consumption footprint that is below the nation‘s carrying capacity. There is a significant aggravating and cultural footprint burdensome cost to (i) the Environment and resource scarcity, (ii) resource war violence from resource scarcity, and (iii) consumption behaviour for a PP4P Consumption Peacenik; where 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. 14 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.‘ 15 Application for Review Founding Affidavit Pay-the-Price-4-Peace One Child Per Family Procreation Credibility (para 80-81) and Pay-the-Price-4-Peace Consumption and Carbon Footprint Credibility (para 82-83) 13
any Organisation insists – without any Ecocentric Reasonable Justification therefore -- on a Printed as opposed to Electronic Complaints Policy. Does the Department of Justice have any Ecocentric Reasonable Justifications for your Printed as opposed to Electronic Filing of Court Service Documents Policy; that justifies your policies significant aggravating and cultural footprint burdensome costs to (i) the Environment and resource scarcity, (ii) resource war violence from resource scarcity, and (iii) denial to a PP4P Consumption Peacenik to live in accordance to her PP4PP consumption behaviour. Are 25 copies really necessary? Can they be environmentally justified? If the registrar, or court, is capable of informing me of the justifications for these abuse of environmental resources requirements, I shall print 25 copies, or a lesser number of copies, however in the absence of such justifications, I consider one hardcopy to be sufficient. Environmental Perspectives on Printing vs. Electronic Policies: Lexis Nexis reports in Saving Trees One Page at a Time16, that ―between January 2008 and May 2012, by choosing to use File & Serve as opposed to traditional paper service, our customers have saved over 220,596 trees! That is equal to over 315 acres of trees or 612,769 feet of paper!‖ It also reported that ―a 2008 survey conducted by Arnold & Porter reported that a single attorney uses an average of between 20,000-100,000 pages of paper per year. This is equal to approximately ½ of a tree and 2 ½ trees per attorney per year in 2008.‖ In 2009 there were approximately 18 000 attorneys practicing in South Africa. On an average of 1 tree per attorney, that amounts to using 18,000 trees, per year; because of court policies that demand Printed as opposed to Electronic Filing and Service Policies. 18,000 trees at an average of 10 trees per acre17, that would be 1,800 acres, / 740 ha / 5.5 miles Long and 1.5 to 2.5 miles Wide ~ 8.25 sq. miles of trees. In ten years, that amounts to 180,000 trees, at an average of 10 trees per acre 18, 18,000 acres / 7,400 ha / 28,125 sq miles of trees. ThinkBeforePrinting19 advocate: “We're not against printing. We're against wasting resources. We don't want to stop people printing. We simply think that sometimes, people, and not everyone, need reminding that wasting paper, ink and toner doesn't make economic or environmental sense. http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/fileandserve/blogs/industrynews/archive/2012/07/30/saving-trees-onepage-at-a-time.aspx 17 http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/service/library/for96-054/index.html 18 http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/service/library/for96-054/index.html 19 http://thinkbeforeprinting.org/ 16
Reduce.org provides the following factual statistics20 on Paper Usage: Over 40% of wood pulp goes toward the production of paper. The costs of using paper in the office can run 13 to 31 times the cost of purchasing the paper in the first place! Saving Paper Saves Money: For each sheet of paper used, a company incurs not only purchasing costs, but also storage, copying, printing, postage, disposal, and recycling. A recent Minnesota study estimates that associated paper costs could be as much as 31 times the purchasing costs (not including labor). So, that ream of paper you paid $5 for really could cost up to $155! Citigroup, a large financial services company, determined that if each employee used double-sided copying to conserve just one sheet of paper each week, the firm would save $700,000 each year. Bank of America cut its paper consumption by 25% in two years by increasing the use of on-line forms and reports, e-mail, double-sided copying, and lighter-weight paper. Paper is an office necessity for some essential tasks, but it has an environmental cost. Creating paper from trees requires a lot of natural resources: trees, water, and energy. It takes more than 1½ cups of water to make one sheet of paper. (Picture a typical soda can.) Reducing paper use reduces greenhouse gases: 40 reams of paper is like 1.5 acres of pine forest absorbing carbon for a year.
Conservatree‟s calculations21 on Printing‘s cost to Environment: 1 ton of uncoated virgin (non-recycled) printing and office paper uses 24 trees. 1 ton of 100% virgin (non-recycled) newsprint uses 12 trees. A pallet of copier paper (20-lb., or 20#) has 40 cartons and weighs 1 ton. 1 carton (10 reams) of 100% virgin copier paper uses .6 trees. 1 tree makes 16.67 reams of copy paper or 8,333.3 sheets 1 ream (500 sheets) uses 6% of a tree (and those add up quickly!). 1 ton of coated, higher-end virgin magazine paper uses a little more than 15 trees (15.36). 1 ton of coated, lower-end virgin magazine paper uses nearly 8 trees (7.68).
In American Bar Association and American Law Institute‘s The Practical Lawyer: James Martin writes in: ―Don‘t Print That Email‖22 (April 2009); ―Going Paperless…Or Not‖ (October 2007), and ―A Model Electronic File Policy for the Law Office‖ (April 2007).
http://220.127.116.11/paper/index.html http://conservatree.org/learn/EnviroIssues/TreeStats.shtml 22 http://jamesmartinpa.com/blog/?p=344 20 21
I don‘t know about your law office, but in mine email carries 90% of what comes in and 90% of what goes out. Paper in and paper out is just 10%. That means we no longer need to print out email onto paper and then file it in a paper file folder. Email has made us paperless. Nowadays, it actually takes more time to ―go paper‖. 5. Make It a Policy: You want your emails to be your business records, your office file, your client file, your evidence. To avoid any dispute about this, you need to make it your standard practice by putting in writing, as an office policy, that your email folder is your official file. .. Conclusion: A wonderful side benefit to this email filing approach is that it is good for the planet, it saves trees, it‘s green, and it comports with the adage ―If it ain‘t broke, don‘t fix it‖. If it ain‘t paper, don‘t print it. That‘s good old, simple, money-saving advice. Just what we need in the world today. Just don‘t forget to make those backup copies.
 Radical Honesty Ecocentric „Normal‟ Electronic Service Filing to Respondents ORDER REQUESTED: Declare that ‗traditional/normal‘ service of process -- as described by Farlam et al in Erasmus Superior Court Practice23 as ―Substituted service is ordered when the defendant is believed to be in the Republic but one of the normal forms of service set out in the rules cannot be effected‖ -- for a PayPrice-4-Peace Peacenik, refers to service by means of email, i.e. responsible conservationist use of resources is to be considered ―traditional/normal‖ use of resources; whereas any unnecessary printing of documents, and its abuse of trees and energy transportation resources is not ‗normal‘ for a PP4PP, and that what is ‗normal/traditional‘ abuse of resources for ‗War is Peace Whores‘ (individuals who live above the nations carrying capacity in terms of procreation and/or consumption) is not normal use of resources for a PP4PP (Annex D). Applicant appreciates the Registrar‘s concession to allow Applicant to file her Application per electronic filing. Applicant however would like to make the following point, as a matter of principle, on the issue.
Service issue 37, (2011). Also see Herbstein and Van Winsen ‗Civil Practice of the High Courts and the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa‘ Vol 1, 5 th edition (2009) at 360 where the authors state that substituted service has been generally effected by allowing for notices to be sent by registered mail or by sending a registered letter 23
Electronic Service is ‗normal‘ for a Pay the Price for Peace Peacenik; whereas ‗printed‘ service is ‗abnormal‘ or ‗substituted service‘ for a PP4PP. Applicant hence requests suspension of Rule 4(1)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court to permit Applicant to initiate proceedings and serve Respondents in accordance with her PP4PP Cultural Footprint consumption practices; to allow for service of all notices – including the initiation of proceedings -- as provided for in 4A(1) of Chapter Ill, Part 2 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act. 2002 (Act No. 25 of 2002), whereby service of all documents and notices in these proceedings on any party to the litigation, may be effected to the personal or professional email address of the person, or their counsel, by electronic mail to the respective address/es, and if or where such a respondent is a foreign national, employed with such foreign national goverment, that such service of initiation of proceedings be copied to the respondents local Embassy email address. Ecocentric „Normal‟ Electronic Service is founded on Global NNR Scarcity & Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict Principles/Worldview: Applicants aforementioned Environmental Perspectives on Printing vs. Electronic Policies, are a subset of her working hypothesis Radical Honoursty cultural belief in Global NNR Scarcity: Global Collapse by 2050 and Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict: Peak Oil is the end of cheap oil, it is the point where every barrel of oil is harder to find, more expensive to extract, and more valuable to whoever owns or controls it. As early as 2000, geological experts warned Peak Oil would occur sometime between 2000 and 200724. Cheap oil is the oxygen of the ―economic growth‖25 global economic system and industrial food production26. Domestic (US) & Global NNR Scarcity Analysis is based upon Mr. Clugston‗s 27 analysis of the criticality and scarcity associated with each of the 89 analyzed NNRs, using data from USGS, EIA, BEA, BLS, Fed, CBO, FBI, IEA, UN, World Bank, etc; and concludes in general that ―absent some combination of immediate and drastic reductions in our global NNR utilization levels, ... we will experience escalating international and intranational conflicts during the coming decades over increasingly scarce NNR‗s, which will devolve into global societal collapse, almost certainly by the year 2050.‖
On February 11, 2006, geologist Kenneth Deffeyes claimed world oil production peaked on December 16, 2005 Deffeyes (2006): "The economists all think that if you show up at the cashier's cage with enough currency, God will put more oil in ground." 26 ―We eat oil. It is a little known fact that for every 1 calorie of food energy produced, 10 calories of hydrocarbons are consumed.‖ - Ruppert, MC (2004): Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, New Society, p.24. 27 Clugston, Chris: Scarcity (Booklocker.com Inc 2012) 24 25
Scarcity Global NNR Scarcity Analysis (pg.51-59) (pg 41-4928) summarizes global criticality and scarcity associated with each of the 89 analyzed NNRs: (a) An overwhelming majority, 63 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, were considered ―scarce‖ globally in 2008, immediately prior to the Great Recession; (b) A significant number, 28 of the 89 analyzed NNRs have peaked: are ―almost certain‖ to remain scarce permanently going forward; and a sizeable number, 16 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, will ―likely‖ remain scarce permanently; and (c) Global extraction/production levels associated with 39 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, are considered ―at risk‖29. Scarcity as a cause of Violent Conflict and a matter of National Security, is based upon the research and conclusions of: ICJ: Opinion of Weeramantry30, Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), Senate, June 28, 199031; Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, (Environmental Security32)33; White House National Security Strategy, 199134; White House National Security Strategy, 199335; White House National Security Strategy, 199536; White House National Security Strategy, 199637; White House National Security Strategy, 201038; NSSM 200: National Security Study http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/clugston_scarcity_pg31-55 At risk are: (a) Antimony: 8 yrs to Global Reserves exhaustion (used for starter lights ignition batteries in cars and trucks; (b) Bauxite: 40 years (only economically viable feedstock for aluminium); (c) Bismuth: 17 years (non-toxic substitute for lead in solder and plumbing fixtures); (d) Cadmium: 25 years; (e) Chromium: 26 years (stainless steel, jet engines and gas turbines); (f) Coal: 40 years (electricity generation); (g) Cobalt: 26 years (gas turbine blades, jet aircraft engines, batteries); (h) Copper: 27 years; (i) Fluorspar: 23 years (feedstock for fluorine bearing chemicals, aluminium and uranium processing); (j) Graphite (Natural): 23 years; (k) Iron Ore: 15 years (only feedstock for iron and steel); (l) Lead: 17 years; (m) Lithium: 8 years (aircraft parts, mobile phones, batteries for electrical vehicles); (n) Manganese: 17 years (stainless steel, gasoline additive, dry cell batteries) ; (o) Molybdenum: 20 years (aircraft parts, electrical contacts, industrial motors, tool steels); (p) Natural Gas: 34 years; (q) Nickel: 30 years; (r) Niobium: 15 years (jet and rocket engines, turbines, superconducting magnets); (s) Oil: 39 years; (t) Rhenium: 22 years (petroleum refining, jet engines, gas turbine blades); (u) Silver: 11 years; (v) Thalium: 38 years; (w) Tin: 18 years; (x) Tungsten: 32 years; (y) Uranium: 34 years (primary energy source, weapons); (z) Zinc: 13 years; (aa) Zirconium: 19 years (nuclear power plants, jet engines, gas turbine blades). 30 Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/92/7383.pdf & http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7521.pdf http://www.unep.org/padelia/publications/Jud.dec.%20pre(Int%20.pdf 31 ―There is also a new and different threat to our national security emerging—the destruction of our environment. The defense establishment has a clear stake in this growing threat... one of our key national security objectives must be to reverse the accelerating pace of environmental destruction.‖ 32 ―By participating on a preventive basis in the resolutions of environmental issues that could lead to such conflict, DOD can forestall future Somalia-like involvements before they occur--an action that is extremely cost effective. Recognizing this phenomenon, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security has defined DOD's role in environmental security to include, "mitigating the impacts of adverse environmental actions leading to international instability.‖ - Butts, Kent Hughes (25 April 1994): Environmental Security: A DoD Partnership for Peace 33 Sherri Wasserman Goodman, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, (Environmental Security), Statement Before the Subcommittee on Installation and Facilities, May 13, 1993 34 National Security Strategy of the United States, Washington, DC, US Gov Printing Office, 1991. 35 National Security Strategy of the United States, Washington, DC, US Gov Printing Office, 1993 36 National Security Strategy of the United States. February 1995, Washington, D. C: Government Printing Office, 1995, p. 18 http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nss/nss-95.pdf 37 A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement, Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office, February 1996. 38 May 2010: National Security Strategy http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf 28 29
Memorandum: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (The Kissinger Report)39; National Security Council: National Security Decision Memorandum 314: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests40; Rockefeller Commission Report: Population and the American Future: The Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future41; United Nations: 1974 World Population Plan of Action42; Department of Defense: Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for the 21st Century Defense43; United States Army & TRADOC (2012): US Army Unified Quest 2012 Fact Sheet44; United States Joint Forces Command: The Joint Operating Environment - 2010 (The JOE â€“ 2010)45; Department of the Army, Field Manual 100-23, Peace Operations46; Butts, Kent: Environmental Security: A DOD Partnership for Peace47; US Army War College; Murphy, Richard: US Army Strategy of the Environment, Office of the Dep. Asst. Sec. of the Army, Environment, Safety & Occup. Health: Assistant for Sustainability48; Council on Environmental Quality49; James M. Waddell, Chief, Office of Strategic Initiatives, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Working Paper: Environment as an Element of National Security50; Michael Renner, World Watch Inst: National Security: The Economic and Environmental Dimensions51; World Bank,
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf National Security Council (1975/11/26): National Security Decision Memorandum 314: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests4, Washington, DC. 4 pp.; made public policy by Pres. Gerald Ford www.population-security.org/12-CH4.html 41 Rockefeller Commission Report (1972/03/27): Population and the American Future: The Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future; a Signet Special Edition, W5219, The New American Library, Inc., 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, March, 1972 issuu.com/jsror/docs/720327_rock-pop www.population-security.org/rockefeller/001_population_growth_and_the_american_future.htm 42 UN (1974/08): World Population Plan of Action; Adopted by consensus of the 137 countries represented at the UN World Population Conference at Bucharest, August 1974 www.population-security.org/27-APP1.html and issuu.com/js-ror/docs/74_un-pop-actionplan 43 http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf 44 United States Army & TRADOC (2012): US Army Unified Quest 2012 Fact Sheet9, Unified Quest 2012 is the Army Chief of Staff's annual Title 10 Future Study Plan (FSP) www.army.mil/article/68379/Unified_Quest_2012___Fact_Sheet/ 45 United States Joint Forces Command (2010/02/18): The Joint Operating Environment - 201010 (The JOE â€“ 2010) www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/JOE_2010_o.pdf 46 Department of the Army, Field Manual 100-23, Peace Operations. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army, December 1994, p. 28. http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/fm100-23(94).pdf 47 Butts, Kent Hughes (25 April 1994): Environmental Security: A DoD Partnership for Peace http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB339.pdf 48 Murphy, R (2006/10/24): US Army Strategy of the Environment, Office of the Dep. Asst. Sec. of the Army, Environment, Safety & Occup. Health: Assistant for Sustainability http://www.cecer.army.mil/techreports/ERDC-CERL_TR-07-9/Session%20I/RichardMurphy.pdf 49 Environmental Quality. 1978 Annual Report on the Environment Washington: Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office, 1978. 50 James M. Waddell, Chief, Office of Strategic Initiatives, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Working Paper: Environment as an Element of National Security, February 1992, p. 4. 51 Michael Renner, National Security: The Economic and Environmental Dimensions, Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, May 1989. 39 40
World Development Report 1992: Development and the Environment52; U.S. Department of State, Problems of Environmental Contamination in the Former Soviet Union53; US Army Inst. of Water Resources: Water in the Sand: A Survey of Middle East Water Issues54; Peter Gleick: "Water and Conflict: Freshwater Resources and International Security"55; Peter Gleick, "Water and Conflict," Occasional Paper Series on Environmental Change and Acute Conflict56; U.S. European Command, Environmental Security In U.S. EUCOM In the Year 200357; William J. Carson, Environmental Security in the USEUCOM Area of Responsibility, (Background Paper)58; Wendy Grieder, U.S. National CCMS Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Memorandum: Status of the NATO/ CCMS Program"59; and "NATO Works with Cooperation Partners on Environmental Problems"60; Peters, Ralph: The Culture of Future Conflict, US Army War College61; MAJ William E David, US Military Intelligence: Environmental Scarcity as a Cause of Violent Conflict62; LTC Kurt F. Ubbelohde: US Army War College: Freshwater Scarcity in the Nile River Basin63; Colonel Brian Bush, US Army War College: Promoting Environmental Security during Contingency Operations64; and many others. There is a significant difference between the irresponsible and abuse of natural resources of a Printed Complaints/Service Policy and the responsible and conservationist respect for natural resources of an Electronic Complaints/Service policy; and that abuse of resources contributes to resource scarcity, which World Bank, World Development Report 1992: Development and the Environment, New York, Oxford University Press, 1992, pp. 30. 53 U.S. Department of State, Problems of Environmental Contamination in the Former Soviet Union, July 14, 1993, pp. 2-3. 54 Water in the Sand: A Survey of Middle East Water Issues, Washington: U.S. Army Institute for Water Resources, 1991, p. 4. 55 Peter Gleick, "Water and Conflict: Freshwater Resources and International Security," International Security, Summer 1993, p. 81. 56 Peter Gleick, "Water and Conflict," Occasional Paper Series on Environmental Change and Acute Conflict, Cambridge, Massachusetts: International Security Studies Program, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, September 1992, p. 8. 57 U.S. European Command, Environmental Security In U.S. EUCOM In the Year 2003, Draft Vision Statement, 1993. 58 William J. Carson, Environmental Security in the USEUCOM Area of Responsibility, (Background Paper), March 9, 1994. 59 Wendy Grieder, U.S. National CCMS Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Memorandum: Status of the NATO/ CCMS Program," May 10, 1993 60 Wendy Grieder, U.S. National CCMS Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "NATO Works with Cooperation Partners on Environmental Problems," NATO Review, April 1993, p. 34. 61 Peters, R (1996): The Culture of Future Conflict, US Army War College: Parameters: Winter 1995-96, pp. 1827 http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/Articles/1995/peters.htm 62 MAJ William E David, USA Military Intelligence: Environmental Scarcity as a Cause of Violent Conflict, School of Advanced Military Studies; United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA314878 63 LTC Kurt F. Ubbelohde (10 April 2000): Freshwater Scarcity in the Nile River Basin, US Army War College http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA378148 64 Colonel Brian X. Bush (13 March 1997): Promoting Environmental Security during Contingency Operations; US Army War College http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA326869 52
contributes to resource wars; and should be avoided at all costs, where possible, by anyone who considers themselves a sincere Peacenik and whose procreation and consumption lifestyle proves her Practice What She Preaches, PP4PP status. Consequently, ‗traditional/normal‘ service of process -- as described by Farlam et al in Erasmus Superior Court Practice65 as ―Substituted service is ordered when the defendant is believed to be in the Republic but one of the normal forms of service set out in the rules cannot be effected‖ -- for a Pay-Price-4-Peace Peacenik, refers to service by means of email, i.e. responsible conservationist use of resources is to be considered ―traditional/normal‖ use of resources; whereas any unnecessary printing of documents, and its abuse of trees and energy transportation resources is not ‗normal‘ for a PP4PP, and that what is ‗normal/traditional‘ abuse of resources for ‗War is Peace Whores‘ (individuals who live above the nations carrying capacity in terms of procreation and/or consumption) is not normal use of resources for a PP4PP.
 Electronic Service Filing to Respondents Acknowledged as Received: Respondents 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 09, 10. Respondent 1: Afriforum: Afriforum acknowledged receipt of service subsequent to the 27 November Electronic Service Notice. A confirmation notice was sent to Afriforum on 29 November: From: Ernst Roets [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:17 PM To: Habeus Mentem Subject: Read: Respondent: 1. Afriforum; 2. TAU-SA; Notice of Intention - Per Electronic Service
Respondent 2: Transvaal Agricultural Union: TAU-SA acknowledged receipt of service subsequent to the 27 November Electronic Service Notice. A confirmation notice was sent to TLU on 29 November: From: Hoofbestuurder [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 2:59 PM To: 'Habeus Mentem'
Service issue 37, (2011). Also see Herbstein and Van Winsen ‗Civil Practice of the High Courts and the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa‘ Vol 1, 5 th edition (2009) at 360 where the authors state that substituted service has been generally effected by allowing for notices to be sent by registered mail or by sending a registered letter 65
Subject: Read: Respondent: 1. Afriforum; 2. TAU-SA; Notice of Intention - Per Electronic Service
Respondent 3 & 4: Julius Malema and African National Congress Mr. Malema and the ANC‘s counsel in the Supreme Court of Appeal in this matter, acknowledged receipt of service, subsequent to a ‗Final Notice‘ (PDF66): From: Jim Matemane [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 3:23 PM To: 'Habeus Mentem' Subject: Read: Mkhabela Huntley Adekeye Inc: Mr. Leslie Mkhabela: RE: Julius Malema & ANC (Review of SCA 815-11: Afriforum v. Malema) From: Jackie Huntley [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 2:36 PM To: 'Habeus Mentem' Subject: Read: Mkhabela Huntley Adekeye Inc: Mr. Leslie Mkhabela: RE: Julius Malema & ANC (Review of SCA 815-11: Afriforum v. Malema) From: Byron Anthony Morris [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 2:26 PM To: Habeus Mentem Subject: Read: Mkhabela Huntley Adekeye Inc: Mr. Leslie Mkhabela: RE: Julius Malema & ANC (Review of SCA 815-11: Afriforum v. Malema)
Respondent 5: Desmond Tutu: Desmond Tutu acknowledge receipt of service subsequent to the 27 November Electronic Service Notice. A confirmation notice was sent on 29 November: From: Toni Doman [mailto:Toni@tutu.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:07 PM To: Habeus Mentem Subject: Read: Respondent: 5:D.Tutu, 6: Intention - Per Electronic Service
From: Vivian Ford [mailto:Vivian@tutu.org.za] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:00 PM To: Habeus Mentem Subject: Read: Respondent: 5:D.Tutu, 6: N.Mandela; Intention - Per Electronic Service
Respondent 6: Nelson Mandela: The Nelson Mandela Foundation acknowledged receipt of service subsequent the 27, 29 November and 03 December Electronic Service Notices: 66
From: Ethel Arends [mailto:Ethel@nelsonmandela.org] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 1:03 PM To: Andrea Subject: Read: Concourt Respondent: 6: N.Mandela; Intention - Per Electronic Service
Respondent 7: FW de Klerk: The FW de Klerk Foundation have acknowledged receipt subsequent to the 27 November Electronic Service Notice. A confirmation notice was sent on 29 November: From: Shan Wolsky [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 9:12 PM To: Habeus Mentem Subject: Read: RE: Respondent: 7: FW de Klerk; 8: CRL Rights Comm; Notice of Intention - Per Electronic Service
Respondent 9: Norwegian Nobel Committee: Chairman: The Norwegian Nobel Committee acknowledged receipt of service subsequent to original notices on 27 and 29 November, and a ‗Final Notice‘ (PDF67) sent on 04 December 2012: From: Lars Heikensten [mailto:Lars.Heikensten@nobel.se] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 8:48 AM To: Habeus Mentem Subject: Läst: Nobel Comm: Chair: Thorbjorn Jagland; CC: Nobel Inst, Nobel Fnd & Council of Europe From: Barbro Jonsson [mailto:Barbro.Jonsson@nobel.se] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 12:49 AM To: Habeus Mentem Subject: Läst: Nobel Comm: Chair: Thorbjorn Jagland; CC: Nobel Inst, Nobel Fnd & Council of Europe From: HOLTGEN Daniel [mailto:Daniel.HOLTGEN@coe.int] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 1:01 AM To: Habeus Mentem Subject: Read: Nobel Comm: Chair: Thorbjorn Jagland; CC: Nobel Inst, Nobel Fnd & Council of Europe
Respondent 10: Central Intelligence Agency: Director General The Office of the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, National Security Division, Department of Justice, acknowledged receipt on behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency: Director General; subsequent to the 27 November Electronic Service Notice. A confirmation notice was sent on 29 November: From: NSD Public (NSD) [mailto:NSD.Public@usdoj.gov] 67
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:27 PM To: Habeus Mentem Subject: Read: Respondent: 10: CIA: Dir.Gen; 11: David Petraeus; Notice of Intention - Per Electronic Service From: NSD Public (NSD) [mailto:NSD.Public@usdoj.gov] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:19 PM To: Habeus Mentem Subject: Read: RE: Respondent: 10: CIA: Dir.Gen; Petraeus; Notice of Intention - Per Electronic Service
 Request Orders for Respondents 08: CRL Rights Commission and 11: David Petraeus Respondent 8: CRL Rights Commission: The CRL Rights Commission have not acknowledged receipt to initial 27 November and 29 November notices. On 04 December 2012, CRL Rights Commission were given a ‗Final Notice‘ (Annex E), which informed them that: From: Habeus Mentem [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 2:35 PM To: CRL Rights: Chair (Chairperson@crlcommission.org.za); CRL Rights: CEO Adv Moreroa (firstname.lastname@example.org); CRL Rights: Office (email@example.com) Cc: 'Edward Mafadza'; 'Nobandile Nkosi'; 'Reitumetse Lemeke'; 'PS Moreroa' Subject: CRL Rights Commission: Rev Mabuza & Adv Moreroa; RE: Concourt Review of SCA 815-11 (Afriforum v Malema) Chair: Rev. Dr Wesley Madonda Mabuza Dep. Chair: Mrs Julia Mabale CEO: Adv. Pheagane Moreroa CRL RIGHTS COMMISSION Private Bag X 90 000 Houghton, 2041 Tel: (011) 537 7600 | Fax: (011) 880 3495 Rev Mabuza & Adv Moreroa, Please find attached PDF: RE: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum, et al (Review of SCA 815/11: Afriforum v. Malema) Notice of Intention served upon CRL Rights Commission on 27 Nov and 29 Nov. CRL Rights Commission have not yet acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Intention electronically served upon your offices on 27 and 29 November 2012. In the absence of acknowledgement of receipt, from any CRL Rights Commission Official; by 17:00hrs on Wednesday 05 December 2012. An application shall be filed with the registrar / court for an order:
Authorizing Applicant’s service per email to Respondents 08 (CRL Rights Commission, per electronic service to the CRL website Official Contact email addresses for the CRL Rights Commission: (i) Chairperson: Dr. Wesley Mabuza (Chairperson@crlcommission.org.za), (ii) CEO: Adv. Pheagane Solomon Moreroa (firstname.lastname@example.org); (iii) Office: (email@example.com), to initiate proceedings and the service of process in this matter; in accordance to Applicants PP4PP consumption and cultural footprint values interpretation of S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18 of the Bill of Rights, read in conjunction with the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act. 2002 (Act No. 25 of 2002).
ORDER REQUESTED: CRL RIGHTS COMMISSION: Authorizing Applicant‘s service per email to Respondents 08 (CRL Rights Commission, per electronic service to the CRL website Official Contact68 email addresses for the CRL Rights Commission: (i) Chairperson: Dr. Wesley Mabuza (Chairperson@crlcommission.org.za), (ii) CEO: Adv. Pheagane Solomon Moreroa (firstname.lastname@example.org); (iii) Office: (email@example.com), on 27 November, 29 November and 04 December 2012; to have initiated proceedings and the service of process in this matter; in accordance to Applicants PP4PP consumption and cultural footprint values interpretation of S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18 of the Bill of Rights, read in conjunction with the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act. 2002 (Act No. 25 of 2002). Respondent 11: David Petraeus: Robert Barnett, the counsel of Mr. David Petraeus, did not acknowledged receipt to 27, 29 November and 03 December notices. On 04 December 2012, Mr. Barnett and the firm of Williams & Connolly LLP were given a ‗Final Notice‘ (Annex F), which informed them that: From: Habeus Mentem [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 4:01 PM To: CIA-PB: David Petraeus: c/o Robert Barnett (email@example.com); 'Williams Connolly: Office'; 'Executive Director: Jennifer Scott'; 'Chief Information Officer: Nicole G. Minnick' Cc: CIA-PB: DNI: James Clapper (firstname.lastname@example.org); CIA-PB: WH: NSA: Thomas Donilon (email@example.com); CIA-PB: Gen Allen: c/o NATO Pub Info Office (firstname.lastname@example.org); CIA-PB: FBI-DC: James McJunkin (email@example.com); CIA-PB: Gen Allen: c/o ISAF Pub Aff Off (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: Williams & Connolly LLP: Robert Barnett: Re: David Petraeus SA Concourt Notice DAVID PETRAEUS C/O Robert Barnett Williams & Connolly LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel: 202-434-5034 | Fax: 202-434-5029 email@example.com CC: Williams Connolly: Office (firstname.lastname@example.org) CC: Executive Director: Jennifer Scott (email@example.com) CC: Chief Information Officer: Nicole G. Minnick (firstname.lastname@example.org) Mr. Petraeus & Mr. Barnett, Please find attached PDF: RE: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum, et al (Review of SCA 815/11: Afriforum v. Malema) Notice of Intention served upon Mr. David Petraeus on 27 Nov and 29 Nov. [Reference to Mr. Petraeus being in regard to Declaratory Order that “Credible Proactive Peace Plan require confronting Peak NNR & Sustainable Security: Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict”.] Mr. Petraeus has not yet acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Intention electronically served upon him, via the offices of Mr. William Barnett, Williams & Connolly LLP, on 27 and 29 November 2012. In the absence of acknowledgement of receipt, from Mr. William Barnett, Williams & Connolly LLP; by 17:00hrs (GMT + 2) on Wednesday 05 December 2012; an application shall be filed with the registrar / court for an order: Authorizing Applicant’s service per email to United States citizen, Respondent 11 (David Howell Petraeus ), per electronic service to Mr. Petraeus, via Mr. Petraeus appointed counsel: Robert Barnett, of Williams Connolly’s official email addresses of: Robert Barnett (email@example.com); carbon copied to Williams Connolly’s Official Email addresses for: Office (firstname.lastname@example.org), Executive Director: Jennifer Scott (email@example.com) and Chief Information Officer: Nicole G. Minnick (firstname.lastname@example.org); in accordance to (I) Applicants PP4PP consumption and cultural footprint values interpretation of S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18 of the Bill of Rights, read in conjunction with the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act. 2002 (Act No. 25 of 2002) and (II) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4(f) which allows for service “by other means not prohibited by international agreement as directed by the court,” as implemented in Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) which established that e-mail was an effective means of communication between parties, and that messages sent to the respondents would serve the purposes of notifying them of the pending litigation. Moreover, there is no indication that service in this manner would contravene any international agreement. Finally courts “have upheld service via e-mail, [in] cases involving email addresses undisputedly connected to the defendants and that the defendants used for business purposes.” (Ehrenfeld v. Bin Mufouz, 2005 WL 696769 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2005))
ORDER REQUESTED: DAVID PETRAEUS: Authorizing Applicant‘s service per email to United States citizen, Respondent 11 (David Howell Petraeus69), per electronic service to Mr. Petraeus, via Mr. Petraeus David Howell Petraeus, born November 7, 1952, a retired American military officer and public official, who served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from September 6, 2011, until his resignation on November 9, 2012. Prior to his assuming the directorship of the CIA, Petraeus was a highly decorated four-star general, serving over 37 years in the United States Army. His last assignments in the Army were as commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A) from July 4, 2010, to July 18, 2011. His other four-star assignments include serving as the 10th Commander, U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) from October 13, 2008, to June 30, 2010, and as 69
appointed70 counsel: Robert Barnett, of Williams Connolly‘s official email addresses of: Robert Barnett71 (email@example.com) [on 27 November 2012,, 29 November, 03 December 2012]; carbon copied to Williams Connolly‘s Official Email addresses for: Office72 (firstname.lastname@example.org), Executive Director: Jennifer Scott73 (email@example.com) and Chief Information Officer: Nicole G. Minnick74 (firstname.lastname@example.org) [on 04 December 2012]; in accordance to (I) Applicants PP4PP consumption and cultural footprint values interpretation of S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18 of the Bill of Rights, read in conjunction with the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act. 2002 (Act No. 25 of 2002) and (II) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 75 4(f) which allows76 for service ―by other means not prohibited by international agreement as directed by the court,‖ as implemented in Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) which established that e-mail was an effective means of communication between parties, and that messages sent to the respondents would serve the purposes of notifying them of the pending litigation. Moreover, there is no indication that service in this manner would contravene any international agreement.77 Finally courts ―have upheld service via e-mail, [in] cases involving email addresses undisputedly connected to the defendants and that the defendants used for business purposes.‖ (Ehrenfeld v. Bin Mufouz, 2005 WL 696769 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2005))
 Registrar‟s Refusal of Case Number indicates a Registrar‟s Office that discriminates at Pro Se and/or Radical Honesty culture Applicants. ORDER REQUESTED: Declare that Clerk: Martie Stander‘s refusal to issue the Applicant with (A) a case number for her Alien on Pale Blue Dot v. Afriforum, et al application is insufficiently justified, (B) in the absence of sufficient justification provided by Director of the Constitutional Court: Vic Misser for his refusal to issue a case number and process application, such refusal should be interpreted to be a result of court officials discrimination against Pro Se and/or Radical Honesty culture applicant/s, (C) that discrimination is unlawful, including discrimination by Court Officials against a Pro Se or Radical Honesty Commanding General, Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF-I) from February 10, 2007, to September 16, 2008. As commander of MNF-I, Petraeus oversaw all coalition forces in Iraq. 70 Jessica Dye (2012, Nov 18): Petraeus retains Robert Barnett, lawyer to political elite; Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/18/us-usa-generals-lawyer-idUSBRE8AH0EW20121118 71 http://www.wc.com/attorney-RobertBarnett.html 72 http://www.wc.com/contact.html 73 http://www.wc.com/contact-leadership-jscott.html 74 http://www.wc.com/contact-leadership-nminnick.html 75 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_4 76 http://blog.internetcases.com/2007/05/14/service-of-process-by-e-mail-allowed-for-foreign-defendants/ 77 See also: Clint Pharmaceuticals v. Northfield Urgent Care, LLC, 2012 WL 3792546 (Minn. App., September 4, 2012), and Williams-Sonoma Inc. v. Friendfinder Inc., No. 06-6572, 2007 WL 1140639 (N.D.Cal. April 17, 2007)
applicant; (D) that Clerks/Registrars, like U.S. courts are required to treat the applications of Pro Se applicants liberally (Foreign Law: Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991); and (E) consequently that the Registrar is ordered to issue the Applicant a case number, including – if relevant – clear and specific requirements the Registrar Respondent requires from the Applicant, for the processing of her Pro Se application. Liberal Treatment of Pro Se or Controversial Applicants: Impartial hearings for arguments about enlarged penises and vagina‟s blocking oil wells, to discharged mice, and women who are not „persons‟; but none for a Radical Honesty PP4PP Pro Se exposing South Africa‟s TRC Fraud: Case Study of United States of America Courts Clerks/Registrars Liberal Response to Pro Se Applicant: Jonathan Lee Richards: Clerks/Registrars, like U.S. courts are required to treat the applications of Pro Se applicants liberally (Foreign Law: Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) Jonathan Lee Riches is a former prisoner (inmate #40948-018) known for the many lawsuits he has filed in various United States district courts78. Since January 8, 2006, he has filed over twenty-six hundred79 lawsuits in federal district courts across America,80 some of which have received considerable press attention.81 Among the more famous defendants of his lawsuits are Dallas area lawyer Treyson Brooks, New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick, former President of the United States George W. Bush,82 Martha Stewart,83 NASCAR driver Jeff Gordon,84 former Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick,85 entrepreneur Steve Jobs,86 celebrity blogger Perez Hilton,87 Somali pirates, and pop
South Carolina inmate hits Michael Vick with '$63,000,000,000 Billion Dollar' lawsuit alleging Al Qaeda ties Fox News. (August 15, 2007) Accessed October 2, 2007. 79 Wikipedia Ref: http://www.pacer.gov 80 Wikipedia Ref: US Pacer US Party/Case Index Website maintained by the federal courts; search for Jonathan Riches prisoner cases on March 3, 2008 returned 1017 cases. 81 "Man of Many Suits", Emil Steiner, The Washington Post 82 Howard, Brian. (April 13–19, 2006). Trial of the century. Philadelphia City Paper. Accessed October 3, 2007. 83 Prisoner known for suing celebrities takes on Martha Stewart Boston.com, in connection with The Boston Globe. (September 19, 2007). Accessed October 3, 2007. 84 Saxon, Eric. (2007). Inmate files federal complaint against NASCAR star Jeff Gordon wsoctv.com. Accessed October 3, 2007. 85 Rankin, Bill. (August 17, 2007). Inmate's bizarre lawsuit against Vick thrown out of court The Atlanta JournalConstitution; and Transcript: 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for August 15 MSNBC. Accessed October 3, 2007. 86 Jade, Kasper. (September 25, 2007).Inmate's suit claims O.J. Simpson is "hitman" for Steve Jobs. Apple Insider. Accessed October 3, 2007. 87 "An Embarrassment Of Riches". thesmokinggun.com. Retrieved October 19, 2007.
star Britney Spears.88 He also sued the late Benazir Bhutto, Pervez Musharraf, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service on November 7, 2007, to prevent him from being deported to Pakistan upon his release from prison in March 2012 so that he will not be tortured. In May 2009, Riches filed for an injunction against the Guinness Book of World Records, seeking to stop them from naming him as the most litigious individual in the history of mankind.89 Some of Riches' defendants are not even people or potentially sueable. These include "Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Party" and the "13 tribes of Israel." 90 One lawsuit, which includes George Bush, also includes another 783 defendants that cover 57 pages. They include Plato, Nostradamus, Che Guevara, James Hoffa, "Various Buddhist Monks," all survivors of the Holocaust, the Lincoln Memorial, the Eiffel Tower, the USS Cole, the book Mein Kampf, the Garden of Eden, the Roman Empire, the Dark Ages, the Appalachian Trail, Plymouth Rock, the Holy Grail, Nordic gods, the dwarf planet Pluto, and the entire Three Mile Island.91 In August 2010 he filed suit against Julian Assange of Wikileaks (CASE #: 1:10-cv-02096-BNB),92 which Assange publicly acknowledged as received, as reported in the Wall Street Journal93: ―"Today I also had a case filed against me in the United States on a wholly unrelated manner," he added, without elaborating.‖ Every case filed by Mr. Riches, received a case number, and can be retrieved at Pacer.gov. Just between August 20 and 23 of 2010, Mr. Riches initiated 25 cases, one of them against Assange. Mr. Riches Pro Se application94 accuses Mr. Assange of among others: ―I had a sexual affair with Barack Obama. I used George W. Bush's stolen credit card to get Obama a penis enlargement which is posted on wikileaks and wikileaks posted the bribe Blagojevish extorted one $50,000 from stolen identities for me to fill Baracks Senate seat. Julian Assange plans to hack into my experian credit report and steal my citibank card to use at Wal-mart to get Just For Men black hair dye to dye for his hair. .. Wikileaks posted secret documents regarding contracts BP oil has with Dr. Amanda Hughes, aka Dr. Amanda Leigh Hughes, Dts, at the Rdap in FMC Lexington. Dr. Hughes was paid 5 million dollars to use her vagina and squat and sit on the BP Lea King oil well to stop the leak in the gulf of Mexico. Dr.
"Contactmusic.com". Prison Inmate Seeks Spears Restraining Order. Retrieved October 12, 2007. Clouse, Thomas (May 23, 2009). "Man sues book over most-litigious crown". The Spokesman-Review. Retrieved 25 May 2009. 90 Emil Steiner, Man of Many Suits, Jonathan Lee Riches Sues Everyone and Everything, Washington Post, August 23, 2007 91 Case #: 2:06-cv-01055-LP 92 http://cryptome.org/0002/riches/riches-v-assange.htm 93 Wall Street Journal (03 Sep 2010): Assange Calls Rape Probe 'Legal Circus' http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467540444512012.html 94 http://cryptome.org/0002/riches/riches-002.pdf 89
Hughes vagina received a Congressional Medal of Honour. I demand all Jonathan Lee Riches copyright material be deleted from the Defendants site....‖ On 30 August 2010, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland issued the following in Jonathan Lee Riches v. Julian Assange, Wikileaks et al: ORDER Directing Clerk to Commence Civil Action and Directing Plaintiff to Cure Deficiency and to Show Cause. Plaintiff is directed to submit a 1915 Motion, Prisoner Complaint, and show cause why filing restrictions should not be imposed against him within 30 days. order95
Case Study of another USA Clerks/Registrars Liberal Response to Pro Se Applicant: United Kingdom: Morabito v. Cyrta: “To a Mouse”: As documented by Christopher Stone in his seminal work: Should Trees have Standing? -- Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects, A group of prison inmates in Suffolk country tamed a mouse that they discovered, giving him the name of Morris. Discovering Morris, a jailer flushed him down the toilet. The prisoners brought a proceeding against the Warden complaining, inter alia, that Morris was subjected to discriminatory discharge and was otherwise unequally treated. The action was unsuccessful, on grounds that the inmates themselves were "guilty of imprisoning Morris without a charge, without a trial, and without bail," and that other mice athte prison were not treated more favourably. "As to the truth victim the Court can only offer again the sympathy first proffered to his ancestors by Robert Burns...." The Judge proceeded to quote from Burns. "To a Mouse" - Morabito v. Cyrta, 9 CRIM. L. REP. 2472 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. Aug. 26, 1971)
In re Goddell: Even Patriarchal Bigots Granted Women the Right to a Hearing: The first woman in Wisconsin who thought she might have a right to practice law was not denied the right to file her application, or denied the right to be heard, she was given the opportunity to be heard, and honourably – to her face – given a verdict to her application, in the following terms: "The law of nature destines and qualifies the female sex for the bearing and nurture of children of our race and for the custody of the homes of the world .... [A]ll life-long callings of women, inconsistent with these radical and sacred duties of their sex, as is the profession of the law, are departures from the order of nature; and when voluntary, treason against it.... The And when counsel was arguing for this lady that the word person, in sec. 32, ch. 119 [respecting those qualified to practice law], necessarily includes females, her presence made it impossible to suggest to him as reductio ad absurdum of his position, that the same construction of the same word... would subject woman to prosecution for the paternity of a bastard, and... prosecution for rape.‖ -- In re Goddell, 39 Wisc. 232, 245 (1875), at 246 95
Radical Honesty Culture‟s Perspective of SA‟s TRC Fraud, Registrar Denies Applicant a Case Number, let alone the Right to be Heard: Meanwhile in Mandelatopia South Africa, with the ‗greatest constitution in the world‘ (sic), a member of the Radical Honesty culture (the applicant) has for ten years been unable to find an attorney to represent her, in accordance to her cultural practices, and been denied a fair and impartial hearing of the Radical Honesty culture‘s evidence and perspective of South Africa‘s Truth and Reconciliation Fraud. Are Pro Se Applications only worthy of ‗liberal treatment to Pro Se‘ Applicants, given Case Numbers and a fair impartial hearing before impartial justices, when the applications are filed by men, from War is Peace Whore cultures, dealing with enlarged penises, vagina‘s blocking leaking oil wells, and discharged mice?
RELIEF REQUESTED: Consequently, I request the Justices to issue the orders as aforementioned, succinctly as: -
Number of Hard copies required by Pro Se Applicants
Traditiona/Normal service of process for PP4PP is per electronic service.
Orders of Electronic Initiated Service for Respondents 8 and 11
Issuance of Case Number, Liberal Treatment of Pro Se Applicants and Registrars discrimination not allowed.
Lara Johnstone, Pro Se Encl: A: 29 Nov: Concourt Registrar Letter to Applicant B: 05 Dec: Soc of Advocates of Kwazulu Natal (PMB) C: 06 Dec: Soc of Advocates of Kwazulu Natal (Dbn) D: Applicants Pay-Price-4-Peace-Peacenik Credibility E: 04 Dec: Final Notice to CRL Rights Commission F: 04 Dec: Final Notice to David Petraeus