* JJ Marx, Rodney de Kock, Shaun Abrams, NPA, Evadne Kortje.
* 19 Feb: Pros JJ Marx: Request for Info Re: CAS 572-02: State v LJ statements.
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub: State v L Johnstone, EoP v Dignitas / 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 2018-02-19 16:41
Subject: JJ Marx via R de Kock: Request for Info Re: CAS 572-02: State v LJ statements.
To: George Pros JJ Marx via WC Pros Rodney de Kock <email@example.com>
Cc: NPA Shaun Abrams <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Media <email@example.com>, Evadne Kortje <firstname.lastname@example.org>
TO: George Pros JJ Marx via WC Pros Rodney de Kock (email@example.com)
CC: NPA HQ: DPP: Shaun Abrams (firstname.lastname@example.org); Media (email@example.com). CC: Former George Pros Evadne Kortje (firstname.lastname@example.org)
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]
Pros JJ Marx: 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 your mental disorder allegation statements 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:
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.
 Additionally on 27 June 2002, Mr. Anton Marx was appointed as my Legal Aid Attorney. Upon Mr. Marx’s arrival in court postea he refused point blank any attempts on my part to inform him of my reasons for admitting to the acts charged and their relation to my intended Political Necessity Defence. He insisted, without listening to me, that he would not allow me to admit to act as charged, even if he had me certified as insane, which he accused me of being. ….….
 I am unaware of the details of Mr. A. Marx’s cognitive decision-making process whereby he formed his opinion as to my alleged Insanity before he ever met me or spoke to me, or how, since he had not had any consultation or conversation with myself. I imagine he was plausibly encouraged to consider me ‘insane’ due to a conversation with either a member of the Prosecution or SA Police, but have no evidence therefore. …..
 On 17 July 2002, Chief Prosecutor Mr. J.J. Marx telephoned me requiring my immediate court appearance on that day. ………..
 On 22 July 2002, I then immediately: —
[92.1] Filed a written letter of request to Johannesburg Head Office for a new Legal Aid Attorney [PDF]; and
[92.2] Filed An official complaint against Prosecutor Sipoyo with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) in Pretoria, Attention Adv. E. Matzke [PDF]; and
[92.3] Hand delivered copies of Legal Aid Letter and NPA complaint to Chief Prosecutor Mr. J.J. Marx and requested information about obtaining the charge sheet records and SAP case file from Pros. J.J. Marx [PDF].
 Prosecutor JJ Marx informed me the Charge Sheet records and case file would be mailed to me upon written request (which I supplied to him [PDF]) and the Prosecutor’s office would contact me by phone for my next court date – if different than 26 August 2002 as remanded to on 17 July 2002 — once a Legal Aid Attorney had been approved. I informed Magistrate Essel of Prosecutor J.J. Marx’s statement to myself, including as to the details of the documents I had delivered to Legal Aid.
 Court Charge Sheet records of 22 July 2002 are at the very least incompetently defective and at worst represent malicious irregular and illegal tainting and alteration of records. Neither do the short hand records correspond to the typed version. Furthermore, my appearance before Magistrate Essel was never entered into the Criminal Record Book (in terms of S. 65(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act), wherein the Clerk daily enters particulars of every criminal case coming before the court on that day.
 On 23 July 2002 at approximately 16:10 hours, SAP Inspector Potje arrested me without lawful justification at my place of employment, the Geronimo Spur, York Street, George, Southern Cape. I requested a copy of the alleged Warrant of Arrest and referral documentation [PDF Annex C], from Inspector Potje, who implied that such a warrant existed, and that it and the referral documentation, would forthwith be provided to me, which it was not. I only received a copy of it after the trial had ended, as noted further below.
 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.
 On 15 August 2002, Mr. D’Oliviera appeared on my behalf before Magistrate Fortuin, Chief Prosecutor Mr. J.J. Marx for the Prosecution. Mr. D’Oliviera had applied to Legal Aid to be appointed as my new Legal Aid Attorney, after my mother had discussed my case with him, and he had expressed concern about me.
 Mr. J.J. Marx’s Irregular and Incorrect statements include:–
[108.1] ‘The (Referral) application was brought by the acc legal representation and that both parties agreed to it.’ I never agreed to Mr. Anton Marx’s referral attempts and I repeatedly over and over (sometimes vehemently) told anyone (including Prosecutor Ms. Sipoyo and Magistrate Govusa), including Mr. A. Marx, who would listen I did not agree. Not one person cared to listen, except finally Magistrate Essel on 22 July 2002. Furthermore, Mr. J.J. Marx was informed by myself – in writing – of my disagreement with Mr. Anton Marx in my 22 July 2002 NPA complaint.
[108.2] ‘It is my submission it is not in the interest of Justice to stop the procedure’. Is it, or is it not, in the interests of justice to destroy an accused’s defense, not to mention psychological integrity?
[108.3] ‘That the accused is misusing the system’. It is unclear how requesting prosecutorial authorities to abide by mandated criminal procedure regulations, and a Magistrate (Essel’s) ruling, or to challenge the irregular behaviour of Prosecutors, while abiding by the law according to the Constitution is misusing the system?
[108.4] ‘The order was in accordance of the law’. The order was definitely not in accordance with S 77 (2) to (5), and the SA Constitution, in definite violation thereof in fact.
[108.5] ‘Her attorney Mr. (A) Marx declared it necessary to have the acc referred.’ I am unaware of any promulgated statutory law which provides attorneys with the legal authority to simply ‘declare it necessary’ to have their clients referred, and their clients have no rights to object or disagree, challenge or adduce evidence to the contrary.
» 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:
 Were the mental disorder allegations you made on 15 August 2002 wherein you recommended Lara to psychiatric observation; a result of your own decision-making or based upon the suggestion and or requests of other – NPA Prosecutor Mueller Redelinghuys and/or NPA WC Prosecutor Rodney de Kock, and/or someone else unknown – individuals?
 If someone else’s suggestion or request: Who made such suggestions and what was their legal ‘mental disorder’ definition and evidence in support of such definition; or the evidentiary reasons for their request?
 If your own decisionmaking: What is your legal definition for a mental disorder; and was this your legal definition for a mental disorder on 15 August 2002? What was your legal doctrine rationale for your ‘mental disorder’ allegation decision-making on 15 August 2002, and/or prior and subsequent thereto?
 If your mental disorder allegation was based upon any of the documentation submitted to you; or CC to you – 22 July 2002: Copy of Letter to Legal Aid [PDF]; 22 July 2002: Complaint to NPA: Adv Matzke: Re: Prosecutor Sipoyo [PDF]; 22 July 2002: Request to Pros JJ Marx [PDF] – could you clarify what statements in such documentation; and your interpretation thereof contributed to your ‘mental disorder’ conclusion?
 Were you the, or one of the, NPA Official/s involved in requesting Magistrate Fortuin to sign the 22 July 2002 J138A Transfer Warrant to Lentegeur [PDF Annex C]; 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 who requested Magistrate Essel to subpoena Dr Boon to provide greater clarity regarding her report, refused Prosecutor Sipoyo’s request for the accused to be transferred to Lentegeur; pending the accused request and the accused be appointed with Legal Aid?
 If so; of your own volition: What was the rationale for your decision and actions?
 If so; not of your own volition, but under orders to do so: Whose orders were you following?
 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 Dr Rausch contact you regarding the content thereof, and if so can you provide a paraphrased transcript of your discussion with Dr. Rausch.
 Re: Your statements to the court on behalf of the Prosecution on 15 August 2002: “‘The (Referral) application was brought by the accused legal representation and that both parties agreed to it. It is my submission it is not in the interest of Justice to stop the procedure. The accused is misusing the system. The order was in accordance of the law. Her attorney Mr. A Marx declared it necessary to have the acc referred.”
[9.1] Since the 22 July 2002 documentation the accused – Lara – delivered to your office, clearly and emphatically informed you that the accused never agreed to Attorney Anton Marx insanity defence referral; Dr Gouzyn’s 03 July 2002 report [PDF Annex A] clearly supported the accused necessity defence; based upon what evidence did you conclude that the accused agreed to the referral?
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.
A copy of this correspondence shall be documented at EoP Legal Submissions [eop-leg-sub.tygae.org.za].
Lara Johnstone Pro Se