* Giselle Rausch, John R Niemand, Food Fitness Factory, Lynette Botha
* 19 Feb: Giselle Rausch: Request for Info Re: CAS 572-02: State v LJ statements.
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub: State v L Johnstone, EoP v Dignitas, LJ v Giselle Rausch / EoP NWO SCO: EoP Axis MilNec Evac: Lotto: EoP v WiP Law, EoP v WiP Academia, EoP v WiP Media, EoP v WiP Charity, EoP v WiP Psych / EoP v WiP Neg.
From: EoP MILED Clerk <email@example.com>
Date: 2018-02-19 19:38
Subject: Giselle Rausch: Request for Info Re: CAS 572-02: State v LJ statements.
To: “Dr. Giselle Rausch” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: John R Niemand via Food Fitness Factory <email@example.com>, Lynette Botha <firstname.lastname@example.org>
TO: Dr. Giselle Rausch (email@example.com)
CC: John R Niemand via Food Fitness Factory (firstname.lastname@example.org); Lynette Botha (email@example.com)
CC: Mag Derek Torlage & Guts Essel:
Magistrate Derek Torlage & Guts Essel via Clerk of Court.
Ref: 2578-14: LJ v FT Moe; 5408-15: LJ v CH Johnstone: Re 06 Oct 2016 [PDF]
Giselle Rausch: Request for Info Re: CAS 572-02: State v LJ statements.
If there are not enough people interested in cooperating with EoP Applicants [eop-applicants.tygae.org.za]; to implement EoP Scientific and Cultural law [eop-scicultlaw.tygae.org.za] as international law to enable humane and orderly deindustrialization and depopulation [eop-v-wip-deindpopn.tygae.org.za]; and consequently Peak NNR [nnr-scarcity.tygae.org.za] nuke war and/or chernobyl x 451 collapse is the WiP future certainty; then if or when such a conclusion is reached; I would be better off using my limited resources to arrange my non-violent planetary departure.
» EoP Leg Sub: 11 Oct: GMC CAS 572-02: State v LJ & 2578-14: LJ v Frode & Talitha Moe; 18 Feb: Frode Moe: Upd Re: 2578-14: LJ v FT Moe Court Proceedings.
I am writing to enquire whether you would be willing to voluntarily answer questions regarding the mental disorder allegation statements made in George Magistrates Criminal Court: Case C572-02: State v L Johnstone:
 In 2002 I was involved as an activist in the 18 June 2002 Political Necessity Trial in George (CAS 572/02; GSH 20/2003): The social activism education issues were:
[6.1] Political Necessity to urgently non-violently educate citizens on importance of voluntary humane and orderly population reduction by “Shock doctrine” disclosure that AIDS is a biological warfare depopulation virus.
[6.2] In the absence of voluntary population reduction, exponential Population Growth colliding with Peak Oil, Peak Arable Land, Peak Water, Peak Food indicate Exponential “French Lilly Pond Tipping Point” of humanity overshooting resource limitations, with potentially disastrous biological and nuclear resource warfare consequences.
 In the event that the court gave me permission to invoke the necessity defence, then expert witnesses would be invited to testify to the necessity related issues in dispute: (i) The Iatrogenic – Laboratory – Origins of AIDS. If required, to provide context to the expert witnesses testimony for the manmade origins of AIDS, giving possible reasons for why such a virus was created, a number of experts could testify to (ii) Overpopulation, Terrorism, Security & Conformity, (iii) US Foreign policy, (iv) Media control, & (v) The psychology of conformity and political correctness issues (i.e. why ‘politically incorrect’ issues are not often openly discussed, and sometimes get ‘solved’ by covert military practices); as well as a suggestion for the resolution of the issue, namely, (vi) Sincere problem solving Truth, Amnesty and Reconciliation, that addresses the root cause of military, legal, political, racial, ideological and religious resource conflict: by removing the right to breed and consume with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity clauses of the Masonic War is Peace international law social contract; and replacing it with clauses that require all the worlds citizens of all nations, races, religions and ideologies to consume and procreate under ecological carrying capacity limits; and if convicted of intentional breeding/consumption war violations; to be humanely eliminated from the planetary genepool.
Subjective Reasonableness of Activism based upon Necessity Defense:
 Political and Military Necessity Defence:
 The principles of my necessity defence were: Overpopulation and Consumption cause: 1. Resource depletion and scarcity and consequently resource wars including biological and chemical warfare and terrorism; and 2. Political correct suppression of the overpopulation and over-consumption causes of resource wars result in covert biological and chemical warfare military population reduction policies; such as the Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS. If we want to end covert military depopulation culling warfare policies; we must address the root causes of socio-cultural ‘right to breed and consume with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits’ policies which cause overpopulation and over-consumption and consequently result in covert military depopulation culling warfare policies.
 Dr. Rausch, in particular:–
[98.1] Refused point blank to enquire into or to address the legality of the J138A documents, even though she admitted she did not know (i) which Magistrate signed the J138A Referral since it was only initialled, with no full name in print, and that Lentegeur’s admission and record keeping policy publicly states that initialling or initialled documents have no validity in law; (ii) which court it had been generated in based on what statutory legislation overruling S 77 (3), (4) and (5), and accused me of being paranoid simply because I enquire into and demand coherent legal answers to, and copies of, possibly grossly irregularly generated legal documents, the result of which force me to be confined in a Mental Institution and totally and possibly irreparably derail my Defence and my Trial;
[98.2] Was obsessively interested in an Insanity Defence and me avoiding trial, although none of her Insanity Fishing Expedition – DeJa Vu of Dr. Boon) – focussed on my State of Mind, or any factual information about details and events surrounding the time of the particular offence, as required by the forensic psychiatric investigation principles and the Criminal Matters Amendment Act, 1988. She highly resented me repeatedly pointing this important requirement of her job – she was neglecting to enquire into – out to her, and our dialogue was acrimonious, because of this, to say the least.
[98.3] Refused to contact any of the Discolosure Project and Radical Honesty culture members; to enquire whether they knew me and whether the statements I made regarding my association with them, were true or figments of my imagination.
 During my stay at Lentegeur Hospital, I repeatedly requested to be provided with copies of all the 23 July 2002 referral related documentation, specifically:–
[99.3] Verbally from Dr. Rausch, the Head of Forensics, at Lentegeur Hospital during the Forensic Psychiatry Team Meeting interview with myself on 31 July 2002;
 On 01 August I telephoned Magistrate Essel — after my mother had gone to see him personally and he had confirmed to her he had no knowledge nor agreement of my referral — to request he confirm his 22 July 2002 ruling, denying the prosecutor’s request to send me for observation; to Dr. Rausch and he had agreed and willingly consented to do so.
 On 02 August 2002 I submitted a written complaint to Dr. Rausch, the Head of Forensics, at Lentegeur Hospital; dated 01 August 2002, titled, RE: Unconstitutional & Illegal Due Process Proceedings by George Chief Prosecutor Mr. J.J. Marx in “court order” (J138), sentencing Lara Johnstone to Psychiatric Observation at Lentegeur Hospital [PDF], requesting she:-
[101.1] provide copies and information about the J138A Referral documents before 17:00 hrs, and
[101.2] telephone Magistrate Essel to authenticate and verify his 22 July 2002 ruling denying Prosecutor Sipoyo’s request for my immediate referral, and correct her irregular and illegally authorized acceptance of my admission.
 Dr. Rausch totally ignored my written and verbal requests.
 At 23:30 hrs on 02 August 2002, I discharged myself by voluntarily leaving Lentegeur Hospital. I did so by climbing out of a window, jumping over the fence, climbing through the bush and over a wall, and then hitch-hiking on the highway through Mitchells Plain to Capetown, to my brother Andre’s flat. The following day I hitchhiked to Pretoria.
 On Sunday, 04 August 2002, I had an emergency meeting at my urgent request at the U.S. Embassy with USAID, US Marine Corps Officer, Mr. P. Hubbard. He informed me that he lacked the ability to do anything to help me, because I was not a US citizen, but he did telephone Dr. Rausch on her cell phone.
 On 22 August 2002 at 6am, I arrived at SAP offices, and was subsequently transferred to Lentegeur, based on my agreement with the Attorney General. After an admission interview with Dr. Dlamini, she informed me that I was going to be placed in the Maximum Security/Lockup Ward, upon the instructions of Dr. Rausch, because of my alleged former ‘escape’. I informed her that I had returned to Lentegeur voluntarily and that I had not formerly escaped, I had voluntarily discharged myself. She refused to acknowledge that I had voluntarily returned, or that I had formerly voluntarily discharged myself, and said Dr. Rausch had strict instructions, which she could not overrule. I was placed in the Maximum Security Ward/Lock-Up/Isolation/Seclusion for my entire observation period. A letter from Mr. D’Oliviera requesting reasons for me being placed in isolation/solitary confinement [PDF ], resulted in a ‘she escaped’ pathetic letter of response from Ms. Erasmus; even though neither Lentegeur nor the Director of Public Prosecutions have ever filed any charges of ‘escaped’ against me, let alone have I ever been convicted of such alleged ‘escape’ charges.
 During the aforementioned observation period, I had the following recorded interviews: two with Dr. Mason, one with a Psychologist (name unknown) and one with Dr. Rausch in a ‘team meeting’; where numerous other psychologists etc. were present. I attempted to inform Dr. Rausch that I did not deserve to be placed in Isolation/Maximum Security, since I had made a voluntary agreement with the Attorney General based upon certain conditions. Subsequent thereto, Dr. Rausch arrived at Lock-up to do a one-on-one personal interview with myself. I insisted on tape-recording it, as per my agreement with the Attorney General. Dr. Rausch refused me permission to audio-record the interview, and informed me that if I insisted on audio-recording the interview, she would refuse to hold the interview with me, and she would indicate on the final report that I was uncooperative and maladaptive, because I insisted on recording all the interviews. I responded that I hoped she would document the incident and my response in it’s entirety, i.e. the reasons for her conclusion that I was uncooperative and maladaptive. Dr. Rausch requested copies of the audio-recorded interview tapes I had with Dr. Mason; for Dr. Rausch to listen to; which I transcribed before providing him with the tapes. Dr. Rausch never returned the tapes to me.
 For the entire period of my second period of observation, I was then held in Maximum Security. Maximum Security consists of a room with a urine infested mattress, a urinal potty, painted windows to obstruct outside viewing, where you are locked in for 22 hours a day. You are not allowed any books, reading or writing material in your room whatsoever, your ‘neighbours’ spend approximately 10 – 16 hours a day screaming hysterically, crying and sobbing frantically or banging their potty’s against their doors. There is a camera in each room and the lights remain on for 24 hours a day. Staff don’t bother much with all the screaming, indifference and apathy are the norm. Expecting any sane human being to sleep, spend time rationally enquiring into their own psyche and behaviour, or to portray emotional, intellectual or psychological balance, well being and health under the circumstances is possibly a question best answered by anyone after having personally incognito spent days or weeks in Lentegeur’s ‘seclusion’ ward. To put it mildly, if you are not highly mentally disturbed, very very angry, aggressive and pissed off, when you arrive, you sure as hell will be when you leave!
 Dr. Rausch submitted a written report confirming no mental illness; but alleging a ‘personality disorder’ [Annex F]. Dr Rausch testified during sentencing proceedings before Regional Magistrate Buhr.
 Prison psychologist Dr Jannie van der Westhuizen also filed a report to the court, at the request of Prosecutor Evadne Kortje [Annex G], which included an allegation of a ‘personality disorder’; and testified about his allegations under oath.
 Neither Dr. Rausch or Dr. van der Westhuizen’s alleged ‘personality disorder’ written report or expert witness testimony allegations passed Magistrate Buhr’s ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard; whose final guilt finding on the bomb threat and property damages charges ruling [Annex H]; included no legal ‘mental disorder’ or ‘personality disorder’ finding against me.
» EoP Leg Sub: 31 Dec: NPA WC & HQ, CC: US & RU Attorney General: TC of Affid ref to Irregular & Illegal Actions of NPA et al in George Case CAS 572-02: Annex BB: Affidavit of Lara Johnstone: Evidence in support of Lara’s Reply Affidavit statement alleging that the State’s 22 July 2002 J138A Transfer Warrant, authorizing Lara’s referral to Lentegeur, filed in CAS 572-01: State v Lara Johnstone: 18 June 2002 Political and Military Necessity Iatrogenic origins of AIDS bomb threat to the P.W. Botha Airport trial; was irregular and illegal [PDF].
Request for Info Questions:
 Did you consider the mental disorder allegations made by George Prosecutor’s office NPA employees: Prosecutor Sipoyo on 22 July 2002 before Magistrate Essel ignoring Dr Gouzyn’s ‘Necessity Defence’ report [PDF Annex A], Pros JJ Marx on 15 August 2002 before Magistrate Fortuin ignoring Dr Gouzyn’s ‘Necessity Defence’ report [PDF Annex A]; Prosecutor Mueller Redelinghuys on 21 August 2002 before Magistrate Fortuin ignoring Dr Gouzyn’s ‘Necessity Defence’ report [PDF Annex A]; wherein they recommended the accused – Lara – to psychiatric observation; to be sincere; or politically – obstruct the accused from being able to proceed with her political necessity defence – motivated?
 What is your legal definition for a mental disorder; and was this your legal definition for a mental disorder in 2002?
 Did you ask George NPA Official/s why they requested Magistrate Fortuin to sign the 22 July 2002 J138A Transfer Warrant to Lentegeur [PDF Annex C];in out of court proceedings behind the back of the accused; knowing that Magistrate Essel had that same morning during court proceedings with the accused present, refused Prosecutor Sipoyo’s request for the accused to be transferred to Lentegeur?
 Re: 02 August 2002 written complaint submitted to Dr. Rausch, the Head of Forensics, at Lentegeur Hospital; dated 01 August 2002, titled, RE: Unconstitutional & Illegal Due Process Proceedings by George Chief Prosecutor Mr. J.J. Marx in “court order” (J138), sentencing Lara Johnstone to Psychiatric Observation at Lentegeur Hospital [PDF]: Did you decide to ignore the complaint; and my request that you telephone Magistrate Essel to authenticate and verify his 22 July 2002 ruling denying Prosecutor Sipoyo’s request for my immediate referral, so that you could honourably discharge me; or were you ordered to ignore the complaint; and if so by whom?
 Did I voluntarily discharge myself, because I (a) repeatedly informed you that Magistrate Fortuin’s out of court 22 July 2002 J138 A Warrant transferring me to Lenteguer was irregular and in violation of Magistrate Essels in court 22 July 2002 court ruling, and (b) requested you to telephone Magistrate Essel and confirm those facts, which you refused to honourably do; or did I unlawfully escape from Lentegeur?
 Did you make the 22 August 2002 decision to order me placed in Maximum Security Lock Up Ward, and if so: was it a sincere decision or a malicious decision; or were you following orders to do so; and if so who gave those orders: did you consider them to be sincere or maliciously based orders?
 My interpretations of our interactions while I was at Lentegeur were that my sincerity – active listening of your questions and honest no matter how politically incorrect answers – irritated the fuck out of you. My interpretation could be inaccurate. Was your enthusiasm to come to a ‘mental disorder’ diagnosis conclusion; based upon your own political views; or based upon pressure from the NPA and/or Ministry of Health?
Reasons for Request of Info Questions:
As noted in correspondence to Magistrate Torlage and Essel – 16 Feb: Mag D Torlage: Re: Update re 5408-15: LJ v CH Johnstone: Re 06 Oct 2016 letter: [G] 15 Feb 2018: Clive and Ann Johnstone ‘Consent to Lara Assisted Suicide’ written statements; [H] 16 Feb 2018: Lara Letter to Clive & Ann: Ack Receipt & Questions Re: 15 February 2018 written statements:
It would be legally unethical for Lara to submit Clive and Ann’s – We consent to Lara’s Assisted Suicide’; while we secretly believe Lara has a mental disorder – written statements to (a) The Russian Government; and/or (b) Dignitas in Switzerland; to request their help with Lara’s assisted suicide.
If Clive and Ann’s layperson mental disorder allegations are not ‘angry letting off steam’ but sincere conclusions; then the only way to help them to find out whether their conclusions are accurate or inaccurate; is by submitting all the evidence in support and against such ‘mental disorder’ conclusion to a Judge for them to enquire into and make a ruling on its accuracy or not.
If (a) Clive and Ann’s layperson mental disorder allegations are partially based on the ‘psychiatric observation’ referral allegations of ‘legal and/or psychologist experts’ during the George Airport Bombthreat Trial; and (b) none of the legal and/or psych experts who made such allegations ever provided Lara with their mental disorder legal definition and/or detailed evidence in support of such definition clarifying their reasons for why they made such allegations against Lara; (c) then its not possible for Lara to clearly and simply explain to Clive and Ann; why these legal and psych experts made the ‘mental disorder’ allegations that they did; and (d) Clive and Ann are left wondering: why exactly did these legal and psych experts accuse Lara of mental disorders; and (e) consequently Clive and Ann’s consent to Lara’s Assisted Suicide is not fully informed consent.
The ‘mental disorder’ allegations were either sincere or malicious. If sincere the evidence upon which the mental disorder allegations were made can be submitted to a Judge to confirm its accuracy or not, enabling such Judge to help Clive and Ann to make a fully informed decision as to the veracity or not of the mental disorder allegations.
Before drafting this letter, I did a ‘Giselle Rausch’ Google search, and noticed the Marie Claire article by Lynette Botha in Magzter The Year That Almost Broke Me, about your best friend Sean and partner Wayne dying in the same week, Wayne on your birthday.
If – I repeat IF – their deaths were partially psychotronically manipulated by military intelligence officials; to send a – EoP or WiP [eop-v-wip.tygae.org.za] Abel & Kane Cold War Truth and Reconciliation [eoptrc-akcoldwar.tygae.org.za] DeIndustrialization & Depopulation [eop-v-wip-deindpopn.tygae.org.za] Negotiations: Military Ethics Degeneracy Q [eop-v-wip-mil.tygae.org.za]: Who Should the Military Kill? – above normal coincidence SIGINT markings message; EoP MILED Clerk interpretations – subject to EoP RH IQO caveat – as to what the possible message’s could be are as follows: Birthday: IG: 16-03-23_ekeinholz-birthdayafterthought; Sean: 17-03-03_culturechange-tallshipshonour.
A copy of this correspondence shall be documented at EoP Legal Submissions [eop-leg-sub.tygae.org.za].
Lara Johnstone Pro Se