* Rodney de Kock, NPA, Shaun Abrams, Evadne Kortje.
* 19 Feb: Pros R de Kock: 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 <email@example.com>
Date: 2018-02-19 16:52
Subject: Pros R de Kock: Request for Info Re: CAS 572-02: State v LJ statements.
To: WC Pros Rodney de Kock <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: NPA Shaun Abrams <email@example.com>, Media <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Evadne Kortje <email@example.com>
TO: NPA WC Pros Rodney de Kock (firstname.lastname@example.org)
CC: NPA HQ: DPP: Shaun Abrams (email@example.com); Media (firstname.lastname@example.org). CC: Former George Pros Evadne Kortje (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]
Pros R de Kock: 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 by NPA Prosecutors, 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.
 State’s Evidence to Rule Out the Reasonable Possibility of Necessity:
 The Prosecutor never submitted any evidence on behalf of the State to rule out the reasonable possibility that my ‘unlawful’ actions were justified by necessity. To the contrary, Dr Gouzyn’s report [Annex A] clearly showed that based upon his interview of myself, in the presence of SAPS Inspector Pollock, my bomb threat actions had been based upon political necessity justifications.
 If the necessity trial had received any publicity; it could have educated South Africans about the breeding and consumption war causes of resource wars; and begun a national and international conversation about whether individuals on planet earth who call themselves ‘humans’ want to cooperate with each other and address those root causes of resource wars.
 The following Ecology of Peace draft definitions were submitted by myself, on behalf of the EoP Applicants; to the Swiss Federal Council ; Re: Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, ITO Article 142 & 143:
 Breeding/Consumption Scarcity Combatant Parties to the Conflict:
[124.1] Any individual, organisation or nation whose procreation or consumption footprint violates its commons carrying capacity limits; should be designated as a ‘breeding/consumption’ scarcity combatant party to any local, regional, national or international resource scarcity related conflict.
 Breeding/Consumption Weapons of War:
[125.1] “We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis, the womb, and the ego. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population and consumption, to below carrying capacity limits; by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis, etc.; you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population; or using the ego to consume in violation of carrying capacity limits; an Act of War” – Amended version of quote by Judge Jason G. Brent, in Humans: An Endangered Species.
 Biological Warfare:
[126.1] Biological Warfare is simply a symptom of breeding and consumption biological behaviours. The most dangerous root cause biological warfare ingredients are (a) male sperm; (b) female ovaries; and (c) ego-gender insecurity memeplexes that have hijacked our brain-matter/minds; to engage in breeding war and consumption warfare behaviour; resulting in ecological overshoot, standing armies and finally military biological warfare.
 Chemical Warfare:
[127.1] Chemical Warfare is simply a symptom of breeding and consumption chemical behaviours. The most dangerous root cause chemical warfare ingredients are (a) male sperm; (b) female ovaries; and (c) ego-gender insecurity memeplexes that have hijacked our brain-matter/minds; to engage in breeding war and consumption warfare behaviour; resulting in ecological overshoot, standing armies and finally military chemical warfare.
 Fraud of UN ‘Peace’ and ‘War’ Treaties:
[128.1] Any United Nations endorsed international treaty related to ‘war’ or ‘peace’ that ignores specifically addressing the breeding war and consumption war violation of carrying capacity limits root causes of ecological overshoot, which subsequently manifests as cannon fodder standing armies and their creation of military chemical, biological, technological, electronic and other related warfare ingredients, is based upon deception and fraud..
High Court Appeal 16/04 aka A696/04 & CAS: 1340/7/07 aka #14/1198/08; Appeal: 19963/09:
 I filed an Appeal with the High Court in Capetown. The Director of Public Prosecutions refused to place my appeal on the High Court Roll. After months of correspondence, which was simply ignored by the Director of Public Prosecutions; I notified the South African Government, via MP Patricia de Lille, and the Director of Public Prosecutions that I would be withdrawing the Appeal; and transferring all my court documents to the US Navy Judge Advocate Generals Office in Washington DC, for their records.
» 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 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; a result of their own decision-making or based upon your orders and/or the requests of other NPA Prosecutor individuals?
 If your own decisionmaking: What is your legal definition for a mental disorder; and was this your legal definition for a mental disorder in 2002?
 If their own decisionmaking: What is the NPA’s legal definition for a mental disorder; and was this the NPA’s legal definition for a mental disorder in 2002?
 Did you order George NPA Official/s to request 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?
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