* Faadiah Davids, Judge Nathan Erasmus, Judicial Service Commission, Sello Chiloane, Tebogo Phaahlamohlaka, Judges Matter.
* 09 Nov: LJ v CRLRC: Case Dismissal Process Issues in Dispute.
» 09 Nov: LJ Re: Notice: Judicial Service Commission and Judge NC Erasmus.
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub: LJ v CRLRC, LJ v Legal Practice Council / EoP NWO SCO: EoP NTE GM: 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 Neg.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
EASTERN CIRCUIT LOCAL DIVISION OF THE WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT; HELD AT GEORGE, SOUTH AFRICA
Case No: H 45/19
Case No Circuit Court: 18912/19
In the matter between:
|CRL Rights Commission||1st Respondent|
|Legal Practice Council||2nd Respondent|
CASE DISMISSAL PROCESS ISSUES IN DISPUTE
Reference to bundles is to 08 Nov 2019: Practice Note, Heads of Argument & Order [PDF]; A: Primary Docs [PDF]; Negotiation Correspondence: B1: 13 Feb – 16 Apr 2019 [PDF]; B2: 27 Jun – 15 Jul 2019 [PDF]; B3: 12 Aug – 18 Oct 2019 [PDF]
Request Declaratory Order confirming Applicants Cultural Membership; or Interdict Ordering Respondents Provide Requested Information:
 NE: Now what you want effectively is an interdict. That’s effectively what you want. You want an order to compel the Legal Practice Council, for example, to do certain things; and to compel the parties to consent to negotiation or mediation, effectively. So there are certain requirements. you want me to order them to give you information. That’s what you want the court One of the requirements for an interdict or otherwise for the court to order somebody to do something; is that the court will only do that; if you have no alternative remedy.to get what you want.
 If the following Facts not in Dispute principles are upheld as lawful:
[2.1] Allegations that are not denied are regarded as having been admitted.
[2.2] Failing to deal with the merits of an applicant’s claim in application proceedings based on some technical ground may have drastic consequences as a respondent may suffer an adverse order being granted without having fully exercised his right to be heard.
 The First Respondent did not provide any evidence in their Opposing Answering Affidavit to indicate that they oppose my statement that I am a member of an Ecology of Peace culture.
 The Second Respondent did not file a Notice to Oppose or an Opposing Answering Affidavit.
 I am unaware of any errors in my interpretation of Facts Not in Dispute as stated in my Closing Statement conclusion and Heads of Argument.
 Furthermore both respondents consented to the suggested Pro Se Set Down proceedings, whereby if Judge Erasmus doubted my – Request for a Declaratory Order confirming Applicants Cultural Membership – Facts Not in Dispute interpretation of respondents responses; prior to making such a Cultural Membership Declaratory Order ruling, Judge Erasmus could submit written questions in writing to respondents to enquire whether they had any objections to my interpretation of the Facts not in Dispute.
 In the context of sincere ego literate cooperative root cause problem solving:
[7.1] Ego literate honest, sincere transparent information sharing, and listening, confirming interpretations, to (a) avoid misunderstandings and confusion and/or (b) prevent withholding of information that may enable quick effective resource conflict problem solving.
[7.2] EoP law penalty for negligent – lack of ego literacy character skills competency – withholding of information – aka deception crime of aggression – is mandated ego literacy classes.
[7.3] EoP law penalty for intentional and unjustified – malicious information resource profiteering – withholding of information – aka deception crime of aggression – is death.
Don’t postpone matters unless you have a good reason:
 NE: No, no no, you see I don’t postpone matters. … I don’t postpone matters that are before me unless I have a good reason. …. And I tried to get people to comply with the Practice Directives, especially our practitioners, strictly. So I will only make exceptions if I have a good reason. So I have tried to look through these papers, right. So, there is a return of service and you know its very difficult for me to read if papers are copied like this..
 No offence intended, but a judge that is unsure whether he has all the required documents in the case, who wants to meet the perceived minimum standard of being a fair impartial juridical arbitrator to applicant and respondents; has no good reason not to postpone the case until all the required documents are available for him to read.
 In this civil matter, the applicant and both respondents consented to the postponement.
 If all parties in a civil matter make a good faith agreement that a postponement of a hearing is in their best interests towards coming to a good faith resolution of their issues in dispute; what good reason does the juridical official have to deny such postponement; particularly when the dismissal involves confusion as to whether the judge even had access to all the requested court record reading material.
 A potential amicable declaratory order resolution between applicant and respondents is now a clusterfuck confusion of documents and reasons for dismissal, wasting the applicant and respondents time with an incompetent dismissal ruling, requiring appeal to enable a competent ruling.
Notice of Set Down Date was not served by Sheriff on Respondents:
 NE: Did you serve a Notice of Set Down on the Respondents, that the matter is going to be heard in court today. LJ: Yes, that was in the filing of the ninth of September the filing notice was called Closing Statements. NE: Was it served on them? LJ: By the Sheriff? NE: Yes. LJ: No, it was served on them by email, and they consented to it. NE: Now you see in South Africa, unlike in some American courts, we have a system that we recognize and should give heed to what is called the Audi Alteram Partem Rule. In other words the other side must be given an opportunity to be heard, and be heard, before a court makes an order. LJ: Absolutely. NE: So if the respondents were not formally notified by service of the Notice of Motion, I can not hear the matter for that reason alone. Do you understand that?.
 On 15 Oct 2019, at the request of Raubenheimers Attorneys: Karin Barkhuizen I was requested to liaise directly with Judge Erasmus Registrar: Faadiah Davids to receive an answer from Judge Erasmus and/or his registrar to my Pro Se litigant questions regarding what Judge Erasmus procedures were for placing an application where all parties are Pro Se – representing themselves – onto the Motion Court Roll.
 At no time did Ms Davids inform me that I was required to serve Set Down Date on the respondents per Sheriff. If Ms Davids had informed me that Notice of Set Down had to be served on the Respondents by Sheriff, I would have done so.
There is no Court Annexed Mediation in the High Court:
 NE: There is no Court Annexed Mediation in the South African High Court, that is formalized through the rules. Those rules are currently being considered to be implemented at a much later stage, that I can tell you as a fact. In the Western Cape Division of the High Court, we do court annexed mediation but not as a formal process. So that relief you seek.
 In the context of Judicial Activism to Protect Minorities, Conflict of Cultures and Necessity and social engineer lawyers or judges: If (a) there are rules in other courts in the same region and/or nation and/or similar international legal systems; that provide for Court Annexed Mediation, and (b) there is a judge who sincerely cares about finding cooperative methods to fairly resolve disputes before such judge; and (c) none of the parties have any objections to being referred to Court Annexed Mediation, or to a resolution of their dispute via dispute resolution rules provided for by rules in a different court, to be applied to their dispute; then (d) there are no rules prohibiting such a judge from making temporary arrangements using legal principles already approved for other courts, consented to by the parties, to help the parties to come to an amicable resolution in a matter before him/her.
The American and South African systems are very different:
 NE: So I take it, I don’t know what Pro Se means. LJ: Pro Se means, in America it means that you are representing yourself. NE: Oh. In South Africa we don’t have that term. LJ: Oh sorry. NE: No, No I am just trying to .. LJ: My husband is an African American prisoner and some of the legal work that I was in helping him. NE: You see so the LJ: I apologize if that NE: The systems are very different.
 Tactically American WiP Only courts may be different to South African WiP Only courts, but strategically WiP Only courts are all the same. Some WiP courts are simply more honest about being Babylonian War is Peace innocence for – breeding and consumption above ecological carrying capacity limits – for sale indulgences WiP Only courts; while others pretend they care about resource conflict problem solving, but its just public relations verbal diarrhea.
 The Heads of Argument [para 23: Conflicts of Cultural Law & Invocation of Cultural Law] clearly clarify that this application is an application requiring EoP and WiP ‘conflict of cultures’ – i.e. Ecology of Peace vs Babylon Masonic War is Peace – juridical arbitration.
 If a Judge is a WiP Only judge, then the honourable juridical response is:
[21.1] EoP Applications are not welcome in my WiP Only innocence for – procreation and consumption above ecological carrying capacity limits – sale indulgences court; and consequently I will enquire whether there are any EoP and WiP judges – which there are: Justice Ngcobo and Judge Lamont have indicated they don’t have objections to EoP applications in their courts – that I can refer the matter to for conflict of cultures juridical arbitration..
Relief sought is incompetent on procedural grounds.
 NE: But I have other issues, and that is why I said I am just not postponing, because should I postpone a matter, there must be the probability, at least a probability that a proper case is made out, that a court can adjudicate on. Now I am not so sure that the relief you seek is competent. LJ: I imagine it would depend on your definition of competent.
 It is quite possible that my relief sought lacks competency on procedural grounds, however I will only be able to improve my incompetent procedural skills, if I am clearly and simply informed what exactly my procedural in competencies were.
 If a Judge wants to help parties to resolve issues in dispute and reduce racial, religious, class and gender resource conflict in larger society; surely the way to competently resolve procedural lack of competency by a party is to clarify what the error is, and provide the party with the opportunity to amend the errors, and proceed with the case, building confidence and trust between citizens and the justice system; not to waste the parties time and dismiss the case, creating in citizens the perception that judges have no sincere interest in finding cooperate fair and impartial ways to help citizens resolve resource conflict disputes.
 08 Nov 2019 Set Down Date Practice Note [pp.01-04]; Applicants Heads of Argument: [pp.05-20]: Authorities Relied Upon: Application Proceedings and Disputes of Fact: Room Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd 1949 (3) SA 1155 (T); Wightman t/a JW Construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd and Another 2008 (3) SA 371 (SCA); Naidoo and Another v Sunker and Another (SCA) (unreported case no 126/11, 29-11-2011); SA Football Association v Mangope (2013) 34 ILJ 311 (LAC) [Heads of Argument: para.22]
 Closing Statement conclusion [A.pp.100-127] and Heads of Argument [para.8]:
 Facts not in Dispute as per Applicants 09 Sep 2019 Closing Statement :
[8.1] Applicants working hypothesis conclusion interpretation of Respondents ambiguous Pro Se Answers – under oath per affidavit, and not under oath in negotiation correspondence – to Applicants Request for Information to CRL Rights Commission and Legal Practice Council.
[A] Applicant is a member of an Ecology of Peace culture, whose Ecology of Peace cultural values are summarized in Applicants Reply Affidavit documents: (a) Ecology of Peace Sincere Peacenik / Honourable Warrior Culture values [pp.16]; (b) EoP Axis Oaths: (i) 19 April 2019 SQWorms Ecology of Peace Policy Statement [pp.01]; 19 Sep 2017: Lara Johnson Responsible Freedom Oath [pp.05].
[B] Applicant has been unsuccessful in finding a lawyer in South Africa willing to legally represent her in a capacity of (a) representation of counsel in accordance to her cultural values; or (b) assistance / standby counsel.
[8.2] Applicants working hypothesis conclusion interpretation of the Ecology of Peace cultural values lawyers consciously or unconsciously objected to (a) discussing verbally or in writing; and/or (b) allowing the applicant to submit into court record proceedings testimony and/or affidavit written statements.
[A] Culture of Honesty:
Lawyers overtly or ambiguously demanded that I engage in behaviour that I objectively and/or subjectively considered to be legal strategic and/or tactical advice that I should engage in conscious deception of the court – in legal terms fraud or perjury – that violated my honesty cultural values – and I refused. Lawyers did not want to engage in intellectual honesty truthseeking to cooperate to clearly and simply legally define responsible freedom procreation and consumption behaviour; and cooperate to draw up a legal plan to implement such responsible freedom procreation and consumption definition as international law.
[B] Culture of Honest Race Relations:
Lawyers did not support my cultural values of buck stops here honest race relations: honesty with black people about procreation above ecological carrying capacity limits causes of resource conflict. They did not appear to have objections to my honesty with white people about consumption above ecological carrying capacity limits causes of resource conflict.
[C] Exposing Babylon Law as root cause of all resource conflict:
Lawyers ignored or refused my legal strategic and/or tactical orders to inform the court of information and/or evidence in support of my cultural values to advocate on behalf of the strategic goal of (a) exposing and abolishing Babylon Masonic War is Peace law – clauses of international law enabling procreation and consumption above ecological carrying capacity limits – as the root cause of all resource conflict, and (b) implementing Ecology of Peace Scientific and Cultural law – clauses of international law requiring all citizens of all nations, races and religions, to procreate and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits, and relate in terms of fully informed consenting agreements – as international law.
 08 Nov 2019 Set Down Date Practice Note [pp.01-04]; Applicants Heads of Argument: [pp.05-20]: Authorities Relied Upon: Judicial Activism to Protect Minorities and Necessity.
 Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education, the epochal Supreme Court decision that outlawed segregation, and of black America’s century-long struggle for equality under law, by Richard Kluger; Random House (1975):
Former Howard Law School student: Howard Law School became a living laboratory where civil-rights law was invented by teamwork. The school worked because of the driving purposefulness of one man: Charlie Houston. He kept hammering at us all those years that, as lawyers, we had to be social engineers or else we were parasites. The whole atmosphere of action-oriented learning under Houston was heady, and every scholar was eager to relate classroom work to social action. We all worked on real briefs and real cases and accompanied Houston and other faculty members to court to learn procedure and tactics. Charlie Houston set out to teach us the difference between what the laws said and meant and how they were applied. His avowed aim was to eliminate that difference. He made it clear to us that when we were done, we were expected to go out and do something with our lives. He was a man you either liked intensely or hated.
Charlie Houston and Howard Law School’s top graduate of 1933, Thurgood Marshall, later to become a US Supreme Court Justice, demonstrated another knack that would enhance his career: he listened. It was not simply that he was deferential; rather, he never thought he knew all the answers. His way to wisdom was to hear out others who might or might not know any more than he did and then to sift it all through his own mental strainer. He never tried to score points as an original or especially creative thinker; his skill was in figuring out who made the most sense – or what parts of other people’s ideas to seize upon and fuse into a prudent plan of action. “He’ll take ideas from a chimneysweep if they sound right to him,” said a former associate.
 08 Nov 2019 Set Down Date Practice Note: Authorities Relied Upon: Invocation of Cultural Law [pp.01-04]; Applicants Heads of Argument: Invocation of Cultural Law [pp.05-20]
Bundle A: Filing 18 Feb 2019: Notice of Motion: Common Law and Legislative Doctrine Relied Upon: Invocation of Cultural Law [A.pp.01-10]: