f ~ .o~·_··~-'-~~:'".~~:.-:~:J.~::_.~~.·~:·..r~~~'~L~~~i':S;)_ - ul, ~~.I '," b'-', •..,.,,) .•~=~ I <..i r"-V",;-0' 1-.., I Dc .0 '<..JLA"'-

I I )~I I U@ ') : 'S)t-JfSI 2009 -08- f 3 ! C let-, I

State v. Johnstone: crime~_~~ C)\PE TOV'.'i\I

Plai ntiff.: HQA\/1p,attiii:a~1IeYCjl~r~~7.,-----.-,. . _ ..~Defendant: Lara Johnstone, HARTSSTA

eT-CAS 1340/7/07 ft 17/1384/07 ft 14/1198/08

George-CAS 572/02 ::: HC-CPD Appeal A 696-04

crimeninuria. blogspot. com

in-gods-name. blogspot. com

13 August 2009

TO: R.W.F. MacWilIiam, Cape Bar: Pro Bono Committee [13 Floor, Huguenot Chambers]

C/O: Anton Katz, Cape Bar: Human Rights Committee [56 Keerom St. Chambers]

CC: Senior Prosecutor: Mr. Jacobs, National Prosecuting Authority

CC: Adv. R. de Kock, Dir. Of Public Prosecutions: Cape Town (c/o Adv. Ackerman; PCLU)

Magistrate Louw, Capetown Magistrates Court

Advocates MacWilliam and Katz,

Request: for Impartial Record Keeping of Documentation: State v. Johnstone:LegafArgument, dated 11 August 2009

The Pro Se Defendant: Lara Johnstone, in the matter State v. Johnstone (14/1198/08), hereby requeststhe Cape Bar: Pro Bono Committee, to act as an Impartial Record Keeper, of the attacheddocumentation in this matter; should the State, at any stage during Sentencing, or subsequent High Court

Appeal proceedings, allege that State v. Johnstone: Legal Argument, dated 11 August 2009, has beenaltered ..

State v. Johnstdne: Legal Argument, dated 11 August 2009, comprises the following documents:~

1. Legal Argument: Argument: Facts Not In Dispute (Pages: 01)

2. Legal Argument: Propositions of Law with Reference to Authorities (Pages: 01 + 18 + 19 = 38)

3. Legal Argument: Chronology of Events (Pages: 35)

4. Legal Argument: Application of Facts to Propositions of Law (Pages: 08)

Encl.:

(*) 17 Feb '09: National Prosecuting Authority: Adv. A.Ackerman: Representations: S. v. Johnstone;Crimen Injuria: Incomplete Further Particulars (Pages: 01)(*) 28 Dec '08: For the Record, State v. Johnstone: Incomplete Further Particulars (Pages:16)(*) 11 June '04: Essay on Proudly South African Parasite Hypocrisy: Fraudulent RehabilitationBoomerang; by White Kaffir Bitch (Page: 31)(*) Population Policy Comon Sense a Practicing Radical Honesty Truth and Forgiveness SocialContract (Pages: 38)(*) Kaffir: Prevailing Norms of Society (Pages: 12)(*) Engineering Consenting Psychological 'Kaffirs' (Pages: 08)(*) Is the African Ideal of Manhood a Kaffir Cultural Belief? (Pages: 12)(*) Trinity Love Eco-Family: Mothers Limbic Brain Love Connection a Fathers Love 4 Justice(Pages:05)

~eL e;'i~ j jhMV'1State v. Johnstone: Crimen Injuria: Legal Argument

j ~ c>~'0 J(fL 11;)3 HR-S

Page 1 of 2

Written Reasons, in accordance with SA Constitution, Just Administrative Action Clause:

Among others:

1. Defendants Request for Submittal of Legal Argument Document into Record Denied; accordinglyDefendant Denied Finding of Not Guilty on all counts

During Legal Argument court proceedings, in this matter, on 12 August 2009, the Defendantrequested that Legal Argument, dated 11 August 2009, be submitted into the court record, asfollows: ,

[Subsequent to reading Legal Argument: Application of Facts to Propositions of Law, into the courtrecord, the Plaintiff stated (paraphrased):

The Defendant further submits her request to submit her full written Legal Argument, from whichshe had been reading the "Legal Argument: Application of Facts to Propositions of Law", out ofher Draft Appeal, in this matter, should the Magistrate choose to find her Guilty. The Defendantwould prefer to submit the document, into the record at this time, thereby avoiding the necessityof Appealing, any possible Guilt Findings. In the defendants opinion, should the Magistrate readthe Draft Appeal, he would find the Defendant Not Guilty, on all counts.

2. Of the five charges of Crimen Injuria, Defendant was Found Guilty, on counts: #1, #2 &: #3; and NotGuilty on #4 and #5.

3. Magistrates Reasons for Guilt Finding, include - in the Defendants subjective and Objectiveopinion -- factual and legal inacuracies, which may have been avoided, had he acceptedLegal Argument: dated 11 August 2009, into the record for his attention. Put differently,he would have come to a finding of Not Guilty on all five counts, had he accepted the fullwritten document and its evidence into the court record. The Magistrate accordingly made adecision about alleged 'irrelevance' of documentation, which he refused to inform himself offirst, so as to determine its relevance or not.

4. Magistrate Louw's statements regarding Defendants Attempts to obtain Legal Counsel, in thismatter, appear to indicate Magistrate Louw has no information whatsoever, about how muchDefendant's family spent on Legal Counsel - mostly for 2 years of Attorney's appearing athuge cost, only for neverending postponements "for further investigation"; how Defendantwas subsequently denied Legal Aid, for reasons of "conflict of interest", etc.; and finallyhow Defendant could not find any Attorney willing to represent her to "tell the truth, thewhole truth, and nothing but the truth." All attorneys stragegy, were in accordance withLegal Doctrine, as conventionally practiced and taught, that when convenient, encouragesDefendants to lie, as a strategy not to be found guilty of what they have been charged with;which violates Defendants Religion, i.e. 'Radical Hon(our)sty Bushido Discordianism.'

It is not hereby submitted that the State will dispute the veracity of the documentation herewithsubmitted for Record Keeping Purposes. In the event that no such dispute occurs, the Cape Bar: ProBono and Human Rights Committee's shall not be required to do anything, except keep thesedocuments in a safe Record Keeping file.

If the State does dispute the veracity of these Records, it would be appreciated, if a member of theCape Bar: Pro Bono or Human Rights Committee, would at such time, at my request, submit theseoriginals into the Court Record, as the originals of 12 August; with myself and Magistrate Louw

present elt the time·r-=-J~~~~:.'~),n Di:(.S:~~~i;Y.T?R.fJlly Requested and Submitted, I ..

I 2009 -08- 1 3 I,I @ IJ-;)S Jf£SL~ ~ .C/\I-'t_ I-OWN . _ I

L_..c ;Y;6RPR6$I~..;=\lrOR -j

State v. Johnstone: Crimen Injuria: Legal Argument Page 2 of 2