Alien v Afriforum

EoP Amicus submission to Afriforum v Julius Malema et al is one of the EoP Legal Submission cases involving EoP scientific and cultural law recommendations to shut down the WiP Ponzi profiteering of resource conflict and misery economy, by ‘turning off the tap’ — i.e. the breeding / consumption above ecological carrying capacity limitscauses of resource conflict and war; by implementing an Ecology of Peace New World Order Social Contract that (a) requires all citizens of all races, religions, nations, to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; or be humanely eliminated from the planetary genepool; (b) nationalizes all property and provides all responsible freedom oath citizens a property ration to enable their shelter and survival self-sufficiency to enable the rebuilding of a relocalized low-tech organic agrarian sustainable future.

.

Summary

Ecology of Peace culture Amicus was submitted in South Gauteng High Court: Afriforum v Julius Malema et al, and subsequently to the Supreme Court of Appeal: Afriforum v Malema et al; eventually resulting in Constitutional Court: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum and Julius Malema et al application. Issues in dispute: Truth and Reconciliation Commission fraud: failure to address the — overpopulation and overconsumption, breeding and consuming above ecological carrying capacity limits — root causes of Apartheid racial resource conflict.

.

Documents

South Gauteng High Court07-2010 EQ JHB: Afriforum v Julius Malema et al:

  • 19 Apr 2011: Filing Sheet [PDF]; Notice of Motion [PDF]; Founding Affidavit [PDF]; Heads of Argument [PDF]; Proof of Service [PDF].

Although neither the applicants nor respondents consented to the EoP Amicus submission; Judge Lamont accepted the EoP application to be filed into the court record; as noted in his ruling[48] Lara Johnstone, the sole member of an entity known as the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion delivered a number of documents by electronic transmission. I tabled the documents at the hearing and they form part of the record.

Supreme Court of Appeal: SCA 815-11: Julius Malema v Afriforum et al:

  • 30 Dec 2011: Notice of Motion [PDF]; Founding Affidavit [PDF]; Heads of Argument [PDF].
  • 22 May 2012: Supreme Court of Appeal: Chief Justice: Amicus Request Denied [PDF]
  • 08 July 2012: Review of Denial: Filing Sheet [PDF] Notice of Motion [PDF]; Affidavit [PDF]; Proof of Service [PDF].
  • There was no response from SCA Justices; to Application for Review of Denial.
  • 31 Oct 2012: Afriforum & Malema Mediation Agreement substituting Judge Lamont Court Order [PDF].

Constitutional Court: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum, Julius Malema et al:

  • 23 Nov 2012: RH Culture Applic for Review of Afriforum & Malema Mediation Agreement: Notice of Motion [PDF]; Founding Affidavit [PDF]; APD Consent to Amicus [PDF]; Proof of Service [PDF]; which includes:

“A Credible Proactive Peace Plan Requires Confronting Peak NNR and Sustainable Security: Scarcity due to Overpopulation/Consumption as Cause of Violent Conflict; Alternatively if SA’s TRC Fraud Fragile Ego’s are more important than Confronting the Scarcity due to Overpopulation/Consumption cause of Violent Conflict’ factor; all South Africans should prepare themselves for the Impending Race and Class War Consequences of the Peak NNR Crisis of Conflict.

  • 29 Nov 2012: Concourt Registrar Letter to APD Applicant: Refusal to Register Application: L Johnstone [PDF]
  • 06 Dec 2012: APD Applicant Appeal of Registrar’s Refusal to Register Application to Concourt Justices [PDF].
  • 10 Dec 2012: Concourt Registrar Letter to APD Applicant: Refusal to Provide Appeal to Concourt Justices  [PDF].

Gender Commission, CRL Rights Commission and Public Protector:

Complaints of Cultural and Gender Discrimination Denial to Access to Courts Applications were filed with the Gender Commission, Public Protector and CRL Rights Commission for the Protection of Cultural and Linguistic Communities. Public Protector and CRL Rights Commission refused the applications.

The Gender Commission ruled that “the Constitutional Court Registrar .. erred in performing his/her “administrative duties’ with respect to receiving your application, issuing you a case number and presenting your matter before a Constitutional Court Judge who is suitably qualified to assess the merits of your case, as provided for under Section 167(1)-(7), Chapter 8: Courts and Administration of Justice”; and that unfortunately the matter fell outside of Gender Commission and CRL Rights Commission’s jurisdiction and recommended a complaint be filed with the Public Protector [PDF].

The Public Protector – Thuli Madonsela – refused to accept the complaint.

..

Correspondence:

EoP Leg Sub APD v Afriforum et al correspondence.