13 Jun: TN: LPC; CC: MLI: H51/19; re: 542/21: Re: EoP law voter v WiP law voter court rules

* Craig Lucas, Legal Practice Council, Kathleen Dlepu, Marais Law Inc, Charl Marais, General Council of the Bar of South Africa, Craig Watt-Pringle SC, Samuel Joseph Lebese, Adv Jeremy Gauntlett, FW de Klerk Foundation, Peter Gabel, Guerrilla Law: Paul Harris.
* 13 Jun: TN: LPC; CC: MLI: H51/19; re: 542/21: Re: EoP law voter v WiP law voter court rules [PDF]
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub: LJ v LPC, LJ v CRLRC, LJ v EGME, LJ v FW de Klerk, LJ v JGauntlett QC  / EoP NWO SCO: EoP NTE GM: EoP NTE GMA: EoP NTE GMZA| 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 Peacenik / EoP v WiP Neg.

From: Lara Johnson [mailto:eop-leg-sub@tygae.org.za]
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2021 12:28 PM
To: ‘Craig Lucas’; ‘Legal Practice Council’; ‘Director: Kathleen Dlepu’; ‘Provincial Director: Gauteng: JS Grobler’; ‘Western Cape: Frank Dorey’; ‘KZN: P Arnold-Mfusi’; ‘Free State: T Leope’
Cc: ‘Guerrilla Law: Paul Harris’; ‘Peter Gabel’
Subject: TN: H51/19; re: 542/21: Re: EoP law voter v WiP law voter court rules
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2021 12:34 PM
To: ‘Marais Law Inc: Charl Marais’
Subject: CC: MLI-CM: TN: H51/19; re: 542/21: Re: EoP law voter v WiP law voter court rules
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2021 12:38 PM
To: ‘General Council of the Bar of South Africa: Chair: Craig Watt-Pringle SC’; ‘Cape Bar Association’; ‘Free State Society of Advocates’; ‘Eastern Cape Society of Advocates: Port Elizabeth’; ‘Grahamstown’; ‘Society of Advocates KZN: Durban’; ‘PMB’; ‘Pretoria Society of Advocates’; ‘Johannesburg Society of Advocates’; ‘Northern Cape Society of Advocates’; ‘Bhisho Society of Advocates’; ‘North West Bar Association’; ‘Polokwane Society of Advocates’; ‘Mpumalanga Society of Advocates’
Cc: ‘Adv Jeremy Gauntlett’; ‘Samuel Joseph Lebese’
Subject: CC: GCBSA: Re: LJvLPC: Re EoP law voter v WiP law voter court rules
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2021 12:39 PM
To: ‘FW de Klerk Foundation’; ‘Theuns Eloff’; ‘Megan Dick’
Subject: CC FWdK: Upd: TN: EoP Law Culture Voter legal filing ref to FW de Klerk et al

.

Sent Separately:
TO: Legal Practice Council: Craig Lucas:
CC: 542/21 Marais Law Inc: Charl Marais:

Multi-Tasking: EoP law voter TRC Neg’s:
CC: General Council of the Bar of South Africa: Chair: Craig Watt-Pringle SC:
CC: Advocates Group 621: Adv Jeremy Gauntlett SC; Samuel Joseph Lebese
Re: Unpopular Facts: Sabela Number Gang Prison Language; UNISA: The Undefined Role of Court Interpreters in South Africa;
Ref: EoP Law Voter Juror Fool for a Client Affidavit: [1] Testifying Under Oath about what I know vs Arguing about WiP Law voters Court Rules [PDF: pp.82-139/139].
CC: FW de Klerk
Ref: 11 Jun: TN: EoP Law Culture Voter legal filing ref to FW de Klerk et al: Re: EoP AU: Draft: Verwoerd Sankara EoP Axis Allianced Treaty PDF: pp.54.

CC: Paul Harris, Peter Gabel
Re: MGL: B/W Rage Confronts the Law: pp.61: democratic consent & legal culture language.

Mr Lucas / Adv Watt-Pringle:

TN: H51/19; re: 542/21: Re: EoP law voter v WiP law voter court rules.

542/21: EoP Law Voter Draft Order for Magistrate:       [5] In the absence of (a) respondents taking judicial notice of Applicants EoP law culture; and consequently (b) all questions of fact or law in dispute being adjudicated in terms of (c) a balance between (i) EoP law culture rules of evidence; and (ii) WiP Law dominant or minority law culture rules of evidence:          [5.1] Any WiP Law Only culture merits and/or costs ruling in this matter was and will be applicable only to WiP Law Only culture respondents and counsel.           [6] In the absence of respondents taking judicial notice of Applicants EoP law culture; there is and will be no EoP and WiP Law ruling on merits or costs, in this matter; applicable to EoP law culture applicant.          [7] Written Reasons:         [7.1] WiP law only respondents and their WiP Law Only counsel have declined to take judicial notice of Applicants EoP law culture.         [7.2] It has not been disputed by WiP law only respondents and their WiP law only counsel; that EoP law culture Pro Se Applicant has been unable to find legal representation and/or standby counsel assistance for EoP law culture for the past twenty years, including in this matter. [08 Jun EoP Law Culture Pro Se: Reply – via Magistrate Henderson – to Respondents Request for Final Relief Certainty (i) Merits and (ii) Costs Order Ruling PDF: pp.13-14/139] [EoP Law Applicant bold emphasis]

**

542/21: EoP Law voter Pro Se Applicant:      I consent to withdrawing any allegedly incompetent Ecology of Peace Law culture Pro Se application, and refilling an application that will be considered legally competent by the Executor; subject to:            Executor and/or her Counsel providing the name/s and contact/s number of one or more George, Southern Cape or South African lawyers, willing to legally represent, an individual from a very small minority-of-one – sincere peacenik / honourable warrior – Ecology of Peace legal culture, in accordance with her Ecology of Peace cultural values; to file an application to resolve Applicants (a) SQWorms – Roy barter exchange; and (b) Gill Lara RoyAdoption instructions claims; that will be considered legally competent by the first and second respondents and/or their counsel.       OR          The Executor and/or her Counsel to clarify the competent process to be followed by [A] a non-lawyer South African resident; from a very small minority-of-one Ecology of Peace legal culture [EoP Axis Oath: LJ2], [B] denied cultural legal representation or standby counsel representation; by negligent or intentional South African WiP law Only lawyers for twenty years; [C] to request a court to provide her with juridical enquiry and arbitration oversight and rulings; for breach of (a) SQWorms-Roy barter exchange; and (b) Gill Lara Roy Adoption instructions contract agreements with respondents. [EoP Law voter Pro Se Settlement Agreement Offer to negligent or intentional WiP law voter respondents counsel: PDF: pp.34-88/204].

**

[Replace ‘white’ with WiP Law Only Babylonian]     Paul Harris: A few days later I walked through the long Kafkaesque hallways of the federal building on my way to court. I could not help but recognize that in this hallowed building of the law, all eight judges were white, all the U.S. attorneys were white, all the federal public defenders were white, all the probation officers, bailiffs, law clerks, and secretaries were white. Everyone was white except the defendant. We stood in court facing U.S. District Court Judge Stanley A. Weigel. Judge Weigel was a liberal in matters of civil liberties and civil rights, but he was strict with criminals and even stricter with lawyers. He was an intelligent and thorough jurist. His Yale law clerks read every motion and brief and prepared detailed memos for him. A lawyer had to be completely prepared when appearing before him. He also had a reputation for running a dictatorial courtroom. He would fine a lawyer for the violation of any one of over a hundred technical, local court rules. At times, he would lash out at attorneys, humiliating them in open court. One lawyer I knew often threw up before working a trial at which Judge Weigel presided. But you could rely on him to give a defendant a fair trial. The judge began to take Steven’s guilty plea: “You know you have a right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself”, he said. “Do you waive that right?” “Yes, I do,” answered Steven. “You have a right to call witnesses in your behalf. Do you waive that right?” “Yes, I do. “You have a right to confront and, through your lawyer, cross-examine all witnesses. Do you waive that right?” “Yes, I do.” “You have a right to a jury trial, a jury of your peers. Do you understand that right?” “If I had a jury of my peers, I would be found not guilty,” replied Steven. There was a pause as the judge stared at the defendant. “What do you mean?” he asked. “If I had twelve people who were really my peers they would understand my action,” Steven answered. The Judge leaned forward, his eyes piercing into mine. “This is not a guilty plea. Counsel, I thought you told the court this was a guilty plea?” I had been taken completely off guard by Steven’s statements. I quickly asked for some time to confer with my client. The judge motioned to the US. marshals. “Take the defendant and his lawyer, and put them in the holding cell until they straighten things out.” For half an hour Steven and I sat in the cell behind the courtroom as once again I explained my idea of a political, psychiatric defense. Once again he refused, feeling it was hopeless. He said he would plead guilty and answer all the judge’s questions the way the judge expected. We returned to court and went through the litany of rights one waives when one pleads guilty. But when the judge got to the part about a jury of peers, there was only silence. Then Steven spoke out clearly and strongly. “If I had a jury made up of people from Ellis and Fillmore Streets I would be found not guilty!” Judge Weigel was seconds from exploding. “This is not a guilty plea. I refuse to accept the plea. You are going to trial!” At the time, none of us expected that a new defense would be the consequence of Steven’s pride and stubborn refusal to accept the legitimacy of a white legal system. [Guerrilla Law: Black/White Rage Confronts the Law].

.

Transparency Notice:

H 51/19: LJ v CRLRC & One Other:

* 23 Jan 2019: H 51/19: Application for Referral to Mediation
Request for information to Legal Practice Council: Re: Ecology of Peace law voter legal services
http://lj-v-crlrc.tygae.org.za/pdf/19-01-23_LJvCRL_A-R2M_CrtSgd.pdf

542/21: LJ v Elliott Estate Executor & Three Others:

* 25 May Setdown: Applicant Written Statement to Magistrate [pp.27]
Ref: EoP Law Voter Request for Standby Counsel Classified Ad [pp.17-27/27]
http://lj-v-gme.tygae.org.za/pdf/mc/21-05-24_LJvEGME_FN_CrtStmt_E-Encl.pdf

* 08 Jun EoP Law Culture Pro Se: Reply – via Magistrate Henderson – to Respondents Request for Final Relief Certainty (i) Merits and (ii) Costs Order Ruling [PDF: pp.139].
URL: http://lj-v-gme.tygae.org.za/pdf/mc/21-06-08_LJvEGME_CW-CoL_E-AF_Crt-Stp.pdf

.

EoP law voter TRC to End Abel and Kane Cold War:

But this much is sure: General Constand Viljoen had his finger on the trigger but chose not to pull it. He recently read a book, by a Mozambican freedom fighter, Viljoen says.  An idea [EoP AU: PDF: pp.54] in the foreword grabbed his attention. What if, Apartheid South Africa and Southern Africa had decided in the 1960s not to fight the Cold War as proxies for the contesting superpowers? What might have been? [EoP Amended: Mail & Guardian: Last Boer general fears for the future: SQ Copy]. [25 May Setdown: Applicant Written Statement to Magistrate: EoP Law Voter Request for Standby Counsel Classified Ad: PDF: pp.17-27/27]

**

EoP Law voter: Authority without – ballot deception and bullet coercion – domination.
11 Jun: TN: EoP Law Culture Voter legal filing ref to FW de Klerk et al.

EoP Law Voter: I made the mistake of voting Yes to give De Klerk an end Apartheid negotiations mandate in 1992 Whites only referendum ‘For’ or ‘Against’ a negotiated constitution; without demanding that ending apartheid be based on a scientific – sincere peacenik / honourable warrior {LJ Index: E16} end racial and economic apartheid {LJ Index: E8-E22} – peace legal definition. [08 Jun EoP Law Culture Pro Se: Reply – via Magistrate Henderson – to Respondents Request for Final Relief Certainty (i) Merits and (ii) Costs Order Ruling: A: Executive Summary: PDF: pp.01-06/139]

[3] THE SAG IS CONCERNED OVER ANC RELATIONS WITH THE SACP AND OVER THE WORKING DEFINITION OF “ONE MAN ONE VOTE,” AMONG OTHER “WHITE FEARS” ISSUES.  MANDELA HAS PASSED DE KLERK’S “PROPOSALS” ON THESE TOPICS TO THE ANC. THE ORGANIZATION’S ANNOUNCEMENT THAT IT IS WILLING TO NEGOTIATE EVEN WHILE APARTHEID LAWS REMAIN IN PLACE MAY BE PART OF THE ANC’S REPLY TO THE SAG. [Wikileaks: Cablegate: 90CAPETOWN97: Essa Moosa Talks about Mandela and Other Topics.]

Peter Gabel: Conf on Critical Legal Studies: The principal role of the legal system within these societies is to create a political culture that can persuade people to accept both the legitimacy and the apparent inevitability of the existing hierarchical arrangement. The need for this legitimization arises because people will not accede to the subjugation of their souls through the deployment of force alone. They must be persuaded, even if it is only a ”pseudo-persuasion,” that the existing order is both just and fair, and that they themselves desire it. In particular, there must be a way of managing the intense interpersonal and intra-psychic conflict that a social order founded upon alienation and collective powerlessness repeatedly produces. “Democratic consent” to an inhumane social order can be fashioned only by finding ways to keep people in a state of passive compliance with the status quo, and this requires both the pacification of conflict and the provision of fantasy images of community that can compensate for the lack of real community that people experience in their everyday lives.          Paul Harris: Society fashions this “democratic consent” through what has begun to be referred to as legal culture. Law has a culture of its own, including education, training, rules of behavior, philosophy, folkways, habits, language, economics, tradition, and stories. The courtroom is one of the key elements of this culture. The structure and rituals of the courtroom are intended to communicate the “three M’s” of the law: majesty, mystique, and might. The architecture of the courtroom divides the lawyers and the judge and his staff from the lay people. The judge’s seat is elevated above everyone else. There is an American flag near the judge, who wears a large black robe. There is a bailiff, usually a law enforcement officer in uniform, who enforces the judge’s rules for the courtroom. Sometimes these rules have no relationship to the process of justice. …… Lawyers are coconspirators in perpetuating the alienation and symbolism of the legal culture and its message of power and authority.     The lawyer, like the priest, is the middle person between life and judgment. He suffers the initiation rites of his calling, wears its vestments, legitimizes its authority, speaks its language, partakes of its rituals, and maintains a monopoly on its mystery.        Just as a formal church service legitimates established religion, the traditional courtroom ritual legitimates the legal system. [MGL: B/W Rage Confronts the Law]

Fyodor Mochulski: Dep Amb to China: On one occasion during the 1959 trip, Kruschev spoke disrespectfully to Mao Tse Tung. He said that Mao was an old boot that needed to be thrown out. The translator had to translate old galosh, and they translated it, as old boot. But in Chinese it means both old boot and prostitute. And when Kang Sheng heard those words, he took it that the great leader was being called an ‘old whore’. – CNN: The Cold War: 15: China.

Margaret Hagen: There are no valid or reliable psychological tests for determining legal competency to stand trial. There are no psychological tests for determining legal insanity. Individual evaluators use whatever strikes their fancy and rely on their clinical intuition for interpretation of the results. There are no special tests, no secret skills, no “expert” clinical method for determining either competence or insanity.      Put as baldly as possible, having a screw loose does not mean that you cannot choose to do right. Hearing voices does not mean that you cannot choose to disobey their instructions.       Anything a patient says, anything at all, can be found to have a coherent psychological interpretation despite an apparent surface contradiction between what is said and the interpretation. You cannot prove clinical psychological theory wrong in any respect. If you deny my clinical explanation, or if aspects of what you tell me are inconsistent with the explanation, then I have only to invoke mysterious psychological mechanisms to ride right over you.          How are you going to prove that I, your therapist, am wrong? You can’t.. – Margaret Hagen: Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice.

14 Dec 1979: Lancaster House ceasefire ultimatum to Patriotic Front.  15 Dec: Patriotic Front Answer to Carrington: clear and eloquent No. Carrington and his Governor can go hang. Orders to escalate the armed struggle stand, and if need be we will issue fresh orders this week and there will be all out war with the British governor in place.  British Foreign Office appealed to Samora Machel to exert influence on the Patriotic Front to accept the ceasefire.  Fernando Honwana: Machel Message to Patriotic Front did not feel that there were any issues at stake at that stage of the conference, which would justify the breaking of the conference. We were not willing to accept the blame for the conference breaking on such minor issues. It was a way of assuring Mugabe that they could take this plunge, we were with them for this plunge, but if they did not take the plunge, things were not going to be as they were before. Machels message arrived as Mugabe was leaving London to take his message to United Nations. Mugabe abandoned his flight and accepted the Lancaster House agreement.  Lancaster House agreement signed 21 Dec 1979. Robert Mugabe: As I signed the document I was not happy. I felt we had been robbed to some extent of the victory we would have achieved in the field.  Samora Machel: We helped Margaret Thatcher because she was brave. She wasn’t afraid to read the pages of history unlike earlier governments. You may ask, ‘Why support a woman from the Conservative party?’ When she is right, when she is strong; then we support her.  And she solved the Rhodesian problem. [BBC: End of Empire: Rhodesia] [EoP AU: Draft: Verwoerd Sankara EoP Axis Allianced Treaty PDF: pp.54.]

 Pending resolution of the 03 Jun 2021 hacking of eop-leg-sub.tygae.org.za; EoP – OKC TRC – Axis Alliance Honest Lives Matter [mcveigh2020] negotiations correspondence is published at EoP Leg Sub: eop-v-wip: telsh

Respectfully,

Lara Johnson,
EoP MILED Clerk [EoP Oath PDF]
16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark, George, 6529

Sent per electronic notice to:

H51/19: Legal Practice Council: Craig Lucas:
Craig Lucas (craigl@lpc.org.za); Legal Practice Council (info@lpc.org.za); Director: Kathleen Dlepu (directorgp@lpc.org.za); Provincial Director: Gauteng: JS Grobler (directorgp@lpc.org.za); Western Cape: Frank Dorey (directorwc@lpc.org.za); KZN: P Arnold-Mfusi (directorkzn@lpc.org.za); Free State: T Leope (directorfs@lpc.org.za);

542/21 Marais Law Inc: Charl Marais:
Marais Law Inc: Charl Marais (charl@marais-law.com)

General Council of the Bar of South Africa: Chair: Craig Watt-Pringle SC:
General Council of the Bar of South Africa: Chair: Craig Watt-Pringle SC (gcbsa.co.za); Cape Bar Association (cbc@capebar.co.za); Free State Society of Advocates (baliebestuur@law.co.za); Eastern Cape Society of Advocates: Port Elizabeth (oasimadvocates@gmail.com); Grahamstown (barcommonroom@roundbar.co.za); Society of Advocates KZN: Durban (kznbar@law.co.za); PMB (pmbbar@pmblaw.co.za); Pretoria Society of Advocates (manager@ptabar.com); Johannesburg Society of Advocates (jhbadmin@law.co.za); Northern Cape Society of Advocates (riette@internext.co.za); Bhisho Society of Advocates (Justitia@telkomsa.net); North West Bar Association (nwba@telkomsa.net); Polokwane Society of Advocates (admin@plkbar.co.za); Mpumalanga Society of Advocates (nomsa@mpbar.co.za);

Samuel Joseph Lebese:
Samuel Joseph Lebese (lebessj@unisa.ac.za)

Adv Jeremy Gauntlett SC:
Adv Jeremy Gauntlett (jeremy@gauntlett.co.za);

FW de Klerk:
FW de Klerk Foundation (info@fwdeklerk.org); Theuns Eloff (teloff@fwdeklerk.org); Megan Dick (megan@fwdeklerk.org);

Peter Gabel:
Peter Gabel (ptrgabel@gmail.com)

Guerrilla Law: Paul Harris:
Guerrilla Law: Paul Harris (guerrillalaw@earthlink.net)

.

Leave a Comment