• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
State v. Johnstone: Crimen Injuria: Legal Argument Page 1of 2
State v. Johnstone: Crimen InjuriaPlaintiff: Hon. Patricia de Lille, MP, IDDefendant: Lara Johnstone, HARTSSTARH
CT-CAS 1340/7/07 & 17/1384/07 & 14/1198/08George-CAS 572/02::: HC-CPD Appeal A 696-04
crimeninuria.blogspot.comin-gods-name.blogspot.com
Legal Argument:
Facts Not In Dispute01/01
Propositions with Reference to Authorities01/01 * 18/18 * 19/19
Chronology of Events35/35
Application of Facts to Propositions of Law08/08
Legal Argument: Facts Not In Dispute
I.
At 15:23; 15:32 and18:32hrs, on 10 July 2007, the Defendant sent three SMS’s to thePlaintiff; for the attention of: (i) Mr. Thabo Mbeki, (ii) Mr. Bulelani Ngcuka, (iii) Mr. J.S.Selebi, (iv) Mr. B.M. Skosana, (v) Mr. Nelson Mandela,and (vi) Mrs. Patricia de Lille; all careof and via the Plaintiff 
1
, in her capacity of,
Non Sub Judice Executive, Opposition Party 
2
;
II.
Then, at 10:23 and 11:32 hrs on 16 July 2007, the Defendant sent two SMS’s to the Plaintiff;for the attention of (i) RSA Legislature; (ii) RSA Judiciary; (iii) RSA Executive Officials; all careof and via the Plaintiff 
3
, in her capacity of,
Non Sub Judice Executive, Opposition Party 
4
III.Conclusion: The aforementioned five SMS’s were not only sent to the Plaintiff herself; but inher Official Capacity of 
Non Sub Judice Executive 
, these exact five SMS’s were also sent to:a.Mr. Thabo Mbeki, then President of South Africab.Mr. Bulelani Ngcuka, then Head, National Prosecuting Authorityc.Mr. J.S. Selebi, then Commissioner of SA Policed.Mr. B.M. Skosana, then Minister ofCorrectionse.Mr. Nelson Mandela, then Former President of South AfricaAnd furthermore, the two SMS’s of 16 July 2007, were not only sent to the Plaintiff herself;but in her Official Capacity of 
Non Sub Judice Executive 
, these two SMS’s were also sent to:f.all South African Legislature Officialsg.all South African Judiciary Officials;h.all South African Executive Officials.
1
See:
 Legal Argument: Chronology of Material Facts:
# 08
(10 & 16 July 2007: ‘Crimen Injuria’ SMS’s)
2
See:
 Legal Argument: Chronology of Material Facts:
# 04 & 07
[
 Notice of Legal & Political Delivery: Elimination of Executive Authorities Plausible Deniability: Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS Theory (i) Documentation, (ii) Investigation, & (iii) Disclosure Case GSH 20/2003
]and [
 HC-CPD Appeal A 696-04 transfer to US Navy JAG, effective noon 18 July 2007: Elimination of South Africa’s Plausible Deniability: AIDS is a ‘Black’ Depopulation Virus
]
3
See:
 Legal Argument: Chronology of Material Facts:
# 08
(10 & 16 July 2007: ‘Crimen Injuria’ SMS’s)
4
See:
 Legal Argument: Chronology of Material Facts:
# 04& 07
[
 Notice of Legal & Political Delivery: Elimination of Executive Authorities Plausible Deniability: Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS Theory (i) Documentation, (ii) Investigation, & (iii) Disclosure Case GSH 20/2003
]and [
 HC-CPD Appeal A 696-04 transfer toUS Navy JAG, effective noon 18 July 2007: Elimination of South Africa’s Plausible Deniability: AIDS is a ‘Black’ Depopulation Virus
]
 
State v. Johnstone: Crimen Injuria: Legal Argument Page 2of 2
Legal Argument: Propositions of Law with Reference to Authorities
A.Law: Critical Literacy Interpretation of Legal Code WordsB.Critical Literacy Interpretation of Legal Code Words: Application Differences betweenLegal Parasites and Legal Social EngineersC.Decoding Social Engineers: Defining & Understanding the Meaning of WordsD.Primary Legal Code Word: Crimen InjuriaE.Decoding ‘Racially Offensive Language’:Executive Overview
Unlawful: Honest Legitimate Criticism vsUnfair Wrongful Insult
Legitimate: Honest & Fair; in Exercise of a Right
If Wrongfulness determined, Crimen Injuria Presumed
Rebuttal: Legal Justification: Political Necessity
If Legally Justified, Intention (Defendants) and Seriousness (Plaintiffs SubjectiveImpairment) considered irrelevant.
If Legal Justification fails, Plaintiff Must Prove Subjective Impairment to DignitySerious:Impairment of Dignity/Unfair Wrongful Insult
Plaintiffs Proof: Subjective Feelings violated
Rebuttal: Legal Justification: Consent to Injury
If Unproven, Intention (Defendants) remains irrelevant
If Proven, Plaintiff Must Prove Defendants IntentionIntention: To Impair Dignity/Unfairly WrongfullyInsult
Plaintiffs Proof: Defendants Intentionto Commit Unfair Wrongful Insult
Rebuttal: Legal Justification: Waiver & Estoppel(Words & Conduct)
If Proven, Plaintiff is entitled to Action for Damages, subject to
De Minimis Non Curat Lex 
Rebuttal: Legal Justification: Jury Nullification& Black/White Rage
F.Decoding Crimen Injuria & Racially Offensive Language: Legal Case Law
Dignity: Private Individual
Dignity: Public Individual
G.Decoding: Kaffir: Prevailing Norms of Society
Etymology
Black, Coloured & Liberal Subjective ‘Insult’ Perspective
Black, Coloured & European Subjective Innocent Perspective
Muslims & Arabic Persons Subjective Perspective
Reclamation of “Nigger” and “Kaffir”, by Niggers & Kaffirs
‘Insult’: Receivers reasoning about character or motivation of speaker
Insults as Humour and Satire: Form of Character Training
Conclusion: Meanings of Words reside in Words or Minds Beliefs?
H.Decoding: Legitimate: Honest & Fair; in Exercise of a Right
i.Constitutional Rights: Equality (§9), Dignity (§ 10), Life (§ 11), Freedom and security of theperson (§ 12), Religion, Belief and Opinion (§ 15), Freedom of Expression(§ 16), PoliticalRights (§ 19), Environment (§ 24), Language & Culture(§ 30), Cultural, Religious & LinguisticCommunities(§ 31), Access to Information (§32), Just Administrative Action(§ 33),Access toCourts (§ 34).ii.General Relevant Principles & Doctrines: Information Warfare a.k.a. Information Operations;Information Management, Relevance & Quality
I.Decoding: Legal Justification: Political NecessityJ.Decoding: Legal Justification: Consent to Injury / AcquiescenceK.Decoding: Legal Code Word: Intention: Mens Rea and Actus ReusL.Decoding: Legal Justification: Waiver & Estoppel(Words & Conduct)M.Decoding: Legal Justification: ‘Black/White’Rage DefenceN.Decoding: Legal Justification: Jury Nullification
 
State v. Johnstone: Crimen Injuria: Legal Argument: Propositions of Law with Reference to Authorities Page 1of 18
State v. Johnstone: Crimen InjuriaPlaintiff: Hon. Patricia de Lille, MP, IDDefendant: Lara Johnstone, HARTSSTARH
CT-CAS 1340/7/07 & 17/1384/07 & 14/1198/08George-CAS 572/02::: HC-CPD Appeal A 696-04
crimeninuria.blogspot.comin-gods-name.blogspot.com
Legal Argument: Propositions of Law with Reference to AuthoritiesA. Law: Critical Literacy Interpretationof Legal Code Words:
According to Professor David Skover, Professor of Law at Seattle University; Lawyers application of theLaw is a form of critical literacy Interpretation of Legal Code Words; specifically:
“All law is interpretation. A lawyer uses words, which are inherently imprecise, and when a lawis applied to the fact of a new situation what lawyers do is interpret the code words to deemthem appropriately or inappropriately applied to the case at hand. To view the law means tounderstand interpretation. Law has more to do with critical literacy studies than it probably hasto do with anything else
.”For example: the Greeks critical literacy etymology perspective to the word politics, being:
Poli, from the Greek ‘Poly’ meaning ‘many’
Tics, from the Greek ‘Blood sucking Insects’
Politics: ‘Many Blood Sucking Insects’, or Parasites.
B. Critical Literacy Interpretation of LegalCode Words: ApplicationDifferences between Legal Parasites and Legal Social Engineers
Howard Law School, Professor Charlie Houston, the primary legal mentor of U.S. Supreme Court JusticeThurgood Marshall, taught that
1
:
‘Lawyers are either social engineers, or they are parasites. Social Engineer Lawyers aim toeliminate the difference between what the laws say and mean, and how they are applied;whereas legal parasites aim to entrench their parasitism from the difference between what thelaws say and mean, and the application of such differences to their parasitic benefit.’
Put differently,
Social Scientists Legal EnquiryPreferences: to favour a Socratic
2
/Hegelian
3
Dialectic
4
search forpure reason
5
and truth, based on undiluted reality, as a constant challenge for human existentialgrowthand social change;
1
 Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education
, by Richard Kluger. Professor Houston and
 Simple Justice
are quoted moreextensively by Defendant in 11 June 2004:
 An Essay on Proudly South African Parasite Hypocrisy: Fraudulent ‘Rehabilitation’  Boomerang: Correctional Services Prison Policies as a Major Intentional Source of New South Africa’s ‘Kaffirs’ AKA ‘Criminals
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...