RH Court Records:
USCAAF: US Court of Appeals for Armed Forces:
CCR v USA 12-8027/AR
USCAAF documents with references to Media's abuse of publicity power in Norway v. Breivik: Founding Affidavit (pg.51-61) | Amicus Curiae (pg.26-27; 28) |
|
Guerrylla Wild Law: A wild law regulates human procreation and/or resource utilization behaviour, to ensure sustainability.
Sustainability Defined: A Sustainable society practices Sustainable Procreation and Natural Resource Utilization Behaviour. Sustainable Natural Resource Utilization Behaviour: Sustainable natural resource utilization behaviour involves the utilization of renewable natural resources—water, cropland, pastureland, forests, and wildlife—exclusively, which can be depleted only at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are replenished by Nature. The utilization of non-renewable natural resources—fossil fuels, metals, and minerals—at any level, is not sustainable. |
Amicus Brief: "Permission to speak Mad Col. Jessop from Kyishodruk[1] - ‘You can’t handle the - Thunderbolt of Flaming Wisdom - Truth’: If you free yourself from the Anthropocentric Masculine Insecurity / Control of ReproductionMycroPhallophobia Mindfuck prison leading humanity over the ecocide cliff, to confront Homer Lea[2] he would declare[3]: The origin of war occurs in the self delusional bullshit belief of everyone who - like Urinetown’s Hope Caldwell – believes they can self-righteously pretend to oppose war, genocide and soldiers and Generals so-called war crimes, while endorsing the inalienable right of everyone to breed, consume as much as they like, whenever they like, wherever they like; and vote for more of the same.
[1] Lama Drukpa Kunley lived in the 15-16th century (aka "Mad Saint" or “Divine Madman” or Madman from Kyishodruk) for his unorthodox ways of painting Thunderbolt of Flaming Wisdom Erect Phallus’ on walls, to shock the uppity and prudish Buddhist clergy. Traditionally erect penis symbols in Bhutan were to drive away evil spirits & malicious gossip.; [2] “[Valour of Ignorance] will someday be studied by thousands of people. Lea understood more about world politics than all the cabinet ministers now in office.” - Vladimir Lenin. Valour of Ignorance was compulsory reading for Japanese cadets, and recommended to West Point cadets by General MacArthur; [3] Lea (1909): “Only when arbitration is able to unravel the tangled skein of crime & hypocrisy among individuals can it be extended to communities & nations. As nations are only man in the aggregate, they are the aggregate of his crimes and deception and depravity, and so long as these constitute the basis of individual impulse, so long will they control the acts of nations.” |
CCR Listing of Applications & Briefs filed in CCR v. USA
USCAAF: United States Court of Appeals for Armed Forces:
Summary of Ecocentric Argument:
1. EcoFeminist Radical Honoursty Transparency culture Wild Law Sustainable Security perspective to parties Anthropocentric Masculine Insecurity PR War of Pretend Transparency to profit from the ‘Control of Reproduction’ Human Farming War Economy Racket
2. Pfc Manning cannot receive a free and fair trial, if Media Abuse their Publicity Power
2. Pfc Manning cannot receive a free and fair trial, if Media Abuse their Publicity Power
Parties in: CCR v. USA
Petitioners: CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, ET AL.: Glenn Greenwald, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!,The Nation and its national security correspondent Jeremy Scahill, Wikileaks and its publisher, Julian Assange; Kevin Gosztola, co-author of Truth and Consequences: The U.S. vs. Bradley Manning, and Chase Madar: author of The Passion of Bradley Manning.
Respondents: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and COL. DENISE LIND, MILITARY JUDGE Amici: REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: Allbritton Communications Company, American Society of News Editors, The Associated Press, Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, Atlantic Media, Inc., Cable News Network, Inc., Digital Media Law Project, Dow Jones & Company, Inc., The E.W. Scripps Company, First Amendment Coalition, Gannett Co., Inc., Hearst Corporation, Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, The McClatchy Company, Military Reporters & Editors, The National Press Club, National Press Photographers Association, New England First Amendment Coalition, New York Daily News, The New York Times, Newspaper Association of America, The Newspaper Guild – CWA, North Jersey Media Group Inc., Online News Association, POLITICO LLC, Radio Television Digital News Association, Reuters, Society of Professional Journalists, Tribune Company, The Washington Post and WNET. |
14 Sept & 24 Sept: Amicus Curiae Application:
14 SEPT: NOTICE OF MOTION & FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED AS AMICUS CURIAE
[1] For an Order to approve the Applicant, to Appear Pro Se (propria persona / pro per), pursuant to Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 92 and Rules 13(a) and 33 (leniency on procedure and Radical Honesty English) of this Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, to appear pro hac vice for the limited purpose of being admitted as an Amicus Curiae. [2] For an Order to approve the Applicant as an Ecocentric Amici Curiae in the above Anthropocentric proceedings in the form of written submissions in accordance with Rule 26(a)(3), of the Rules of Court. 24 SEPT: BRIEF IN PROPRIA PERSONA BY AMICI CURIAE LARA JOHNSTONE IN SUPPORT OF AN ECOCENTRIC WILD LAW SUSTAINABLE SECURITY PERSPECTIVE [Caveat: Subject to Order from Court ITO S. 35 Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 92; Rules 13(a) & 33 (leniency on procedure and Radical Honesty English)] |
14 & 24 Sept: US Court of Appeals for Armed Services Clerk Response:
Response from US Court of Appeals for Armed Services: Clerk of the Court: Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 7:17 PM: Subject: RE: CCR v. United States - Dkt. No. 12-8027/AR - electronic filing: "Your pleadings have been received and referred to the Court."
09 Oct: USCAAF: CCR / Wikileaks vs USA Ruling on Ecocentric Amicus
Correspondence from: United States Court of Appeals for Armed Forces (USCAAF): Clerk of the Court: William DeCicco: Subject: CCR v. U.S., # 12-8027/AR
DeCicco:
After reviewing the amicus brief and other documents you sent to the Court, the Judges have decided not to grant your request to proceed as an amicus curiae in the subject case. This means that said brief and documents will not be made part of the record and will not be considered by the Judges in the disposition of the case.
DeCicco:
After reviewing the amicus brief and other documents you sent to the Court, the Judges have decided not to grant your request to proceed as an amicus curiae in the subject case. This means that said brief and documents will not be made part of the record and will not be considered by the Judges in the disposition of the case.
09 Oct: USCAAF: Johnstone Response to Clerk of Court: DeCicco:
Correspondence to: United States Court of Appeals for Armed Forces (USCAAF): Clerk of the Court: William DeCicco: Subject: CCR v. U.S., # 12-8027/AR
Many thanks for the response from the Court and Judges.
Can’t say I am surprised. Everyone is petrified of the media’s publicity power, from the worlds super power, to Julian Assange! South African Constitutional Court Judges are PETRIFIED of the media. The only culture not petrified of the media, and of whom the media are petrified, is the radical honesty culture. We actually practice 100% transparency, and so the media cannot intimidate us with exposing anything! God it pisses them off!!! [Here is a good trick, if you don’t want journalists to write anything about you. It works like agent orange to journalists (who are the most fragile ego fuckers on the planet): constructive criticism to their face! Its not very difficult to insult them, but constructive criticism, works like a charm! They demand you practice Bullshit the Public Relations, and then wish to blame you for it, when you do; and when you refuse to, they throw a hissy fit. They don’t know how to handle in your face constructive criticism! To insult a journalist, simply provide them with honest sincere constructive criticism. Go figure!! Its almost impossible to insult me! (but that is another trick for another day)] A final thought for the Left and Right Wing Anthropocentric Masculine Insecurity PR War of Pretend Transparency to profit from the ‘Control of Reproduction’ Human Farming War Economy Racket protagonists: ----------- If I had been the President of South Africa (don’t worry, the South African populace are way too brainwashed stupid to ever give me one vote, and I would not accept any vote from any individual who lived above South Africa’s carrying capacity, in terms of procreation or consumption), my response to the United States Government on Cablegate would have been as follows: “Mrs. Clinton; there is sweet fuck all to apologize for. I hereby inform any individual in my cabinet or government who is offended; please feel free to provide the US government with any evidence that any statement in their cables was factually incorrect, for their investigation and correction; or if you can’t handle factual reality, its time for you to hand in your resignation. I am not interested in leading a government of civil servants that pretend to stand for truth on the world stage, but whose behaviour demands secrecy and sycophancy. Grow fucking up! Constructive criticism is the act of a true friend, and enables us to amend our errors. This is an opportunity to encourage the US Government and all other governments to feel free to share with us their brutally honest opinions, so that we can get down to some problem solving instead of the bullshit masculine insecurity parasite leeching that is currently being practiced and does not solve any problems. I think this is a wonderful opportunity for the world to consider these leaks, as not a problem, but an opportunity; for us to devise a new transparent brutally honest dialogue amongst nations and thier officials. Its time to bury the bullshit the public relations diplomacy for fragile ego masculine insecurity children, we have been conducting for the past 2000 years.” ---------- One question to the Clerk(If you know it )/Court:. Was this purely the Judges decision; or did any of the parties oppose my application? Finally: My highest respect for the professionalism of the Clerk of the Courts Office. I appreciate you for acknowledging receipt of my application and for passing it on to the court for their consideration, and for the courts response. Many thanks. |
10 Oct: Oral Argument:
USCAAF: Oral Argument by CCR and USA. [Audio]
* Counsel for Appellants: Shayana D. Kadidal, Esq. (writ-appeal petition) (reply brief)
* Counsel for Appellees: Capt Chad M. Fisher, JA, U.S. Army (brief)
* Counsel for Appellants: Shayana D. Kadidal, Esq. (writ-appeal petition) (reply brief)
* Counsel for Appellees: Capt Chad M. Fisher, JA, U.S. Army (brief)
15 Oct: Electronic Filing: Petition for Reconsideration in terms of Rule 31:
Petition for Reconsideration (PDF) electronically filed with USCAAF Clerk of the Court: Subject: CCR v. USA - Dkt. No. 12-8027/AR - Electronic Filing - Petition for Reconsideration ITO Rule 31
SUMMARY OF PETITION ARGUMENT:
[A] The court failed in its responsibility to “search for the truth”, which is the interest that Judges should keep “prominently-indeed, primarily-in mind”
[B] Appellants and Amici’s Reporting on USCAAF: CCR vs. USA (i) Ecocentric Amicus Submission and ‘tea-leaves’ Denial by Court, (ii) 10 October 2012 Oral Arguments
[C] Applicants Ecocentric Amicus Meets Supreme Court and Federal Appellate Circuit Court Standards
[D] Radical Honoursty TruthSeeking: Investigating whether the Courts decision is a ‘social trap/fence’ consequence of political correct colonized minds attempt to avoid debate about the role of Anthropocentric legal doctrine’s contribution to the Human Factory Farming War Economy Racket
[E] CIA & Pentagon Social Science TruthSeeking: Finite Resources & Control of Reproduction Breeding War Acts of War: Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik One Child Oath
SUMMARY OF MARIA BOCHKAREVA LEAVER PEACENIK ONE CHILD OATH:
I have watched (i) Ted Koppel’s Nightline: CIA & Pentagon on Overpopulation and Resources Wars videos; (2) Dr. Jack Alpert’s very simple explanation videos: (a) Human Predicament: Better Common Sense Required; and (b) Rapid Population Decline or Civilization Collapse. (links in MBLP Oath form)
I hereby declare that I am a sincere Leaver peacenik, who is willing to pay the one child only, per family, price for peace; by addressing the root causes of conflict, and helping to move the humans on Planet Earth onto a procreation trend towards peace. I furthermore authorize the Central Intelligence Agency to remove me and my children from the Leaver genepool, by assassination, if I violate this Honour Oath.
I further hereby request, that if Pfc Bradley Manning is willing to take this Leaver Peacenik One Child Oath, that the Director General of the Central Intelligence Agency, make an official request to the relevant authority, for all charges against Pfc. Manning in this matter to be withdrawn and the matter to be considered amicably resolved, forthwith.
Secondly, that the Central Intelligence Agency’s Kent Center establish a fund for contributions in honour of Pfc Manning, to establish a bi-annual ‘Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik Honor Medal’, to be awarded on the 23rd of April, of every year, for the individual who has done the most to educate their community, or nation on the role of overpopulation and overconsumption as factors pushing society to conflict and war.
SUMMARY OF PETITION ARGUMENT:
[A] The court failed in its responsibility to “search for the truth”, which is the interest that Judges should keep “prominently-indeed, primarily-in mind”
[B] Appellants and Amici’s Reporting on USCAAF: CCR vs. USA (i) Ecocentric Amicus Submission and ‘tea-leaves’ Denial by Court, (ii) 10 October 2012 Oral Arguments
[C] Applicants Ecocentric Amicus Meets Supreme Court and Federal Appellate Circuit Court Standards
[D] Radical Honoursty TruthSeeking: Investigating whether the Courts decision is a ‘social trap/fence’ consequence of political correct colonized minds attempt to avoid debate about the role of Anthropocentric legal doctrine’s contribution to the Human Factory Farming War Economy Racket
[E] CIA & Pentagon Social Science TruthSeeking: Finite Resources & Control of Reproduction Breeding War Acts of War: Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik One Child Oath
SUMMARY OF MARIA BOCHKAREVA LEAVER PEACENIK ONE CHILD OATH:
I have watched (i) Ted Koppel’s Nightline: CIA & Pentagon on Overpopulation and Resources Wars videos; (2) Dr. Jack Alpert’s very simple explanation videos: (a) Human Predicament: Better Common Sense Required; and (b) Rapid Population Decline or Civilization Collapse. (links in MBLP Oath form)
I hereby declare that I am a sincere Leaver peacenik, who is willing to pay the one child only, per family, price for peace; by addressing the root causes of conflict, and helping to move the humans on Planet Earth onto a procreation trend towards peace. I furthermore authorize the Central Intelligence Agency to remove me and my children from the Leaver genepool, by assassination, if I violate this Honour Oath.
I further hereby request, that if Pfc Bradley Manning is willing to take this Leaver Peacenik One Child Oath, that the Director General of the Central Intelligence Agency, make an official request to the relevant authority, for all charges against Pfc. Manning in this matter to be withdrawn and the matter to be considered amicably resolved, forthwith.
Secondly, that the Central Intelligence Agency’s Kent Center establish a fund for contributions in honour of Pfc Manning, to establish a bi-annual ‘Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik Honor Medal’, to be awarded on the 23rd of April, of every year, for the individual who has done the most to educate their community, or nation on the role of overpopulation and overconsumption as factors pushing society to conflict and war.
15 Oct: Price for Peace Oath Filing & Authorisation to CIA: Dir. Gen. Petraeus
Certificate of Filing and Authorisation (PDF) to CIA: Dir. Gen. Petraeus: Subject: CCR v USA: Dkt. No. 12-8027/AR: USCAAF Judges & CIA Dir.Gen Petraeus: Price for Peace Oath
CERTIFICATE OF FILING & AUTHORISATION TO CIA: DIR.GEN. PETRAEUS I certify that on 15 October 2012 at 18:34 HRS (GMT+2), I faxed my MARIA BOCHKAREVA LEAVER PEACENIK ONE CHILD OATH and passport verification to General David Petraeus, Director General, Central Intelligence Agency, Office of Public Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20505, by facsimile to: (703) 482-1739, granting General Petraeus the relevant authorization, as stated. I certify that I electronically submitted on 16 October 2012; a copy to: 1. USCAAF Clerk of the Court: William DeCicco 2. USA Counsel: Captain Chad Fisher 3. Pfc Manning Counsel: David Coombs Esq 4. US House Intelligence Committee 5. National Security Agency Chief |
"Representation of female nudity is conventionally a blatant sign of reduction of the female to sexuality [...] Phallic imagery that reminds men of their self-centeredness is a counterculture, not a celebration of the male. It is a condemnation of the unchecked male ego, rather than a rigid fiesta of all things phallocentric." - Dasho Karma Ura, president of the Centre for Bhutan Studies in the capital of Thimpu
|
16 Oct: Clerk of the Court: William DeCicco: Re: Petition for Reconsideration:
Correspondence from William DeCicco: Clerk of the Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces: Re: Petition for Reconsideration:
"The Judges of the Court have asked me to respond to you regarding the Petition for Reconsideration you sent to the Court on October 15. On October 9, I informed you that the Court would not consider your amicus brief and that it would not be made part of the record. The rejection of your brief was not done by order, decision or opinion of the Court, and therefore is not subject to reconsideration under Rule 31. Accordingly, and with the agreement of the Judges, your petition for reconsideration likewise will not be considered or be made part of the record."
"The Judges of the Court have asked me to respond to you regarding the Petition for Reconsideration you sent to the Court on October 15. On October 9, I informed you that the Court would not consider your amicus brief and that it would not be made part of the record. The rejection of your brief was not done by order, decision or opinion of the Court, and therefore is not subject to reconsideration under Rule 31. Accordingly, and with the agreement of the Judges, your petition for reconsideration likewise will not be considered or be made part of the record."
16 Oct: Response to Clerk of Court: Re: Humpty Dumpty Ruling on Petition for Reconsideration:
Excerpts of Response to USCAAF: Clerk of the Court: Mr. De Cicco: Subject: RE: CCR v. USA - Dkt. No. 12-8027/AR - Response to Judges & Clerk of Court: Mr. De Cicco
Thank you for your email. Thank the Judges for informing me of this; however could they be a bit more specific.
If the Judges rejection of my brief was “not done by order, decision or opinion of the Court”; by what exact legal due process ‘thought/decision making’ procedure was the rejection done? Please provide them with the following letter, directly to them:
--------
1. No disrespect intended, but that’s a Humpty Dumpty message: Judge Ryan to Government: (35:16) "I am asking for a simple thing, which is this: instead of making a constitutional case out of this, why don’t you just be reasonable?" I am asking the Judges a simple thing, which is this: instead of making a constitutional case out of this, why don't you just be reasonable? According to which judicial decision making process of 'reasonableness' should I evaluate your “not done by order, decision or opinion of the Court”? Humpty Dumpty's?
2. Request for Information: So, what exactly do I need to file to get you Judges to change whatever you call your thought process/decision making order to the Clerk to refuse me access to the court for my Amicus?
3. Also for the record: Updates (PDF) to Petition for Reconsideration of Denial of Ecocentric Amicus Curiae, in terms of Rule 31:
4. Please Note: If you, refuse me access to file my Amicus, for no justified due process reasons, I shall file an application for review to the Supreme Court. Maybe they don't accept it for hearing, but, who knows, maybe they do!
Thank you for your email. Thank the Judges for informing me of this; however could they be a bit more specific.
If the Judges rejection of my brief was “not done by order, decision or opinion of the Court”; by what exact legal due process ‘thought/decision making’ procedure was the rejection done? Please provide them with the following letter, directly to them:
--------
1. No disrespect intended, but that’s a Humpty Dumpty message: Judge Ryan to Government: (35:16) "I am asking for a simple thing, which is this: instead of making a constitutional case out of this, why don’t you just be reasonable?" I am asking the Judges a simple thing, which is this: instead of making a constitutional case out of this, why don't you just be reasonable? According to which judicial decision making process of 'reasonableness' should I evaluate your “not done by order, decision or opinion of the Court”? Humpty Dumpty's?
2. Request for Information: So, what exactly do I need to file to get you Judges to change whatever you call your thought process/decision making order to the Clerk to refuse me access to the court for my Amicus?
3. Also for the record: Updates (PDF) to Petition for Reconsideration of Denial of Ecocentric Amicus Curiae, in terms of Rule 31:
4. Please Note: If you, refuse me access to file my Amicus, for no justified due process reasons, I shall file an application for review to the Supreme Court. Maybe they don't accept it for hearing, but, who knows, maybe they do!
22 Oct: USCAAF: Clerk of Court: Re: Pro Se Ecocentric Amicus Curiae
Correspondence from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces: Clerk of the Court: William DeCicco, CIV, USCAAF: Subject: Center for Constitutional Rights, et al. v. United States and Colonel Denise Lind
To recap, in late September, I forwarded your request to file a pro se amicus brief in the case of Center for Constitutional Rights, et al. v. United States and Colonel Denise Lind, to the Judges of the Court. After reviewing it, and exercising their discretion, the Judges noted you are not a party to the case and therefore cannot appear “pro se” and that you are not an attorney who would be able to file an amicus brief. Additionally, the Court noted your use of indecent language and the lack in your brief of any coherent argument to be allowed to file. Accordingly, they instructed me not to file it with the record and to return it to you. A court order was not issued. Because you filed electronically, there was no point in returning it to you, but I did inform you by email that the Judges decided not to grant your request to file the pro se amicus brief.
On October 15, you filed a petition for reconsideration, which I also forwarded to the Judges. They directed me to inform you that because there was no order issued in the first instance, there was no basis for a petition for reconsideration under Rule 31 (“A petition for reconsideration may be filed no later than 10 days after the date of any order, decision or opinion by the Court”). I informed you of this on October 16. Later the same day you replied, attached a letter to the Judges, and asked me to submit it to the Judges. Due to the profanity and intemperate language you used in the letter, I have not forwarded it to them and I will not do so.
You may now do what you feel is appropriate, but at this time the Court considers the matter closed.
To recap, in late September, I forwarded your request to file a pro se amicus brief in the case of Center for Constitutional Rights, et al. v. United States and Colonel Denise Lind, to the Judges of the Court. After reviewing it, and exercising their discretion, the Judges noted you are not a party to the case and therefore cannot appear “pro se” and that you are not an attorney who would be able to file an amicus brief. Additionally, the Court noted your use of indecent language and the lack in your brief of any coherent argument to be allowed to file. Accordingly, they instructed me not to file it with the record and to return it to you. A court order was not issued. Because you filed electronically, there was no point in returning it to you, but I did inform you by email that the Judges decided not to grant your request to file the pro se amicus brief.
On October 15, you filed a petition for reconsideration, which I also forwarded to the Judges. They directed me to inform you that because there was no order issued in the first instance, there was no basis for a petition for reconsideration under Rule 31 (“A petition for reconsideration may be filed no later than 10 days after the date of any order, decision or opinion by the Court”). I informed you of this on October 16. Later the same day you replied, attached a letter to the Judges, and asked me to submit it to the Judges. Due to the profanity and intemperate language you used in the letter, I have not forwarded it to them and I will not do so.
You may now do what you feel is appropriate, but at this time the Court considers the matter closed.
23 Oct: Response to Clerk of Court: Re: Falling Man Syndrome Anthropocentric Jurisprudence:
Response to William DeCicco: Clerk of the Court: USCAAF: Subject: RE: CCR, et al. v. US & Colonel Denise Lind: Response to Clerk of Court
PRO SE AMICUS BRIEF: thank you for this additional information. However, the Judges did not inform me that (a) their reasons for refusal had to do with me being a "pro se" amicus, and (b) still have not provided me with any statutory justifications for their refusal of a Pro Se Amicus. I am unaware of any law that prohibits a Pro Se individual to file an Amicus, that provides a court with restrictive ‘search for truth’ (Jaffee v. Redmond), avoid argument duplication (Craig v. Harney), ‘presents new ideas, arguments, theories, insights, facts and data’, ‘speaks on behalf of an unrepresented party’ and ‘presents a unique perspective and specific information’ (The Voices for Choices v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company) Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit Court Standards. If you recall, my notice of motion stated: -------------- [1] For an Order to approve the Applicant, to Appear Pro Se (propria persona / pro per), pursuant to Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 92 and Rules 13(a) and 33 (leniency on procedure and Radical Honesty English) of this Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, to appear pro hac vice for the limited purpose of being admitted as an Amicus Curiae. [2] For an Order to approve the Applicant as an Ecocentric Amici Curiae in the above Anthropocentric proceedings in the form of written submissions in accordance with Rule 26(a)(3), of the Rules of Court. -------------- |
INDECENT LANGUAGE:
How interesting! What did the Judges not understand about:
"leniency on procedure and Radical Honesty English" (Notice of Motion)
"PR Image Management dispute resolution has a preference for a sliding scale of sycophantic intellectual fairness above public Gunnery-Sgt-like face-to-face expression of anger" (Affid. Para.11)
"Radical Honesty is a powerful process by which members make corrections in their minds distorted and only partly conscious maps of the world, by overcoming societies demands for "bullshit the public relations image management" and learning to express their suppressed anger and resentments honourably in the moment, face to face, and resolving them." (Affid. Para.12)
[.. Profanity .. Intemperate Language .. etc.. ]
ANTHROPOCENTRIC JURISPRUDENCE & CATHOLIC CHURCH:
I am well aware that the Anthropocentric Jurisprudence Elite, and those whom they have been rewarding with 'breeding warrior conspirator innocence for sale indulgences' and 'consumption warrior conspirator innocence for sale indulgences' while happily proceeding with their Human Factory Farming War Economy Racket; view my paralegal arguments against Anthropocentric Jurisprudence corrupt disregard for the procreation and consumption carrying capacity Laws of Nature, perhaps less favourably than the Catholic Church, viewed Priest Martin Luthers 95 Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, which Luther posted on the door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg, on October 31, 1517.
Unlike Martin Luther, I have fuck all interest in a fanclub, or in overthrowing the Anthropocentric Jurisprudence Indulgences for Sale Church, if it is happy being a two faced hypocrit Anthropocentric Jurisprudence Indulgences for Sale Church.
I have no objection to 'humans' practicing Human Factory Farming, if that is what you wish to do. I am simply continually surprised you lack the courage and integrity to be honest with yourselves about what the fuck you are doing to yourselves; while pretending all this shit about 'rights' and 'duhmockery' and 'republic' ad nauseum. Why not just be honest that it is all bullshit the public relations image management? It is hardly surprising that beings who lie to themselves as much as the majority of 'humans' on this poor fucked up planet do; have such fucking fragile ego's and such low self esteem, and hence such incapacity for constructive criticism, or such low appreciation for brutal honest honourable face to face criticism.
The foundation of 'self esteem', lies in the ability to be brutally honest with yourself, and your refusal to lie to anyone to satisfy fragile ego's desires to be 'wanted' or 'needed' or considered 'important', by a bunch of people you have lied to; to refuse to practice bullshit the public relations with anybody, including yourself.
How interesting! What did the Judges not understand about:
"leniency on procedure and Radical Honesty English" (Notice of Motion)
"PR Image Management dispute resolution has a preference for a sliding scale of sycophantic intellectual fairness above public Gunnery-Sgt-like face-to-face expression of anger" (Affid. Para.11)
"Radical Honesty is a powerful process by which members make corrections in their minds distorted and only partly conscious maps of the world, by overcoming societies demands for "bullshit the public relations image management" and learning to express their suppressed anger and resentments honourably in the moment, face to face, and resolving them." (Affid. Para.12)
[.. Profanity .. Intemperate Language .. etc.. ]
ANTHROPOCENTRIC JURISPRUDENCE & CATHOLIC CHURCH:
I am well aware that the Anthropocentric Jurisprudence Elite, and those whom they have been rewarding with 'breeding warrior conspirator innocence for sale indulgences' and 'consumption warrior conspirator innocence for sale indulgences' while happily proceeding with their Human Factory Farming War Economy Racket; view my paralegal arguments against Anthropocentric Jurisprudence corrupt disregard for the procreation and consumption carrying capacity Laws of Nature, perhaps less favourably than the Catholic Church, viewed Priest Martin Luthers 95 Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, which Luther posted on the door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg, on October 31, 1517.
Unlike Martin Luther, I have fuck all interest in a fanclub, or in overthrowing the Anthropocentric Jurisprudence Indulgences for Sale Church, if it is happy being a two faced hypocrit Anthropocentric Jurisprudence Indulgences for Sale Church.
I have no objection to 'humans' practicing Human Factory Farming, if that is what you wish to do. I am simply continually surprised you lack the courage and integrity to be honest with yourselves about what the fuck you are doing to yourselves; while pretending all this shit about 'rights' and 'duhmockery' and 'republic' ad nauseum. Why not just be honest that it is all bullshit the public relations image management? It is hardly surprising that beings who lie to themselves as much as the majority of 'humans' on this poor fucked up planet do; have such fucking fragile ego's and such low self esteem, and hence such incapacity for constructive criticism, or such low appreciation for brutal honest honourable face to face criticism.
The foundation of 'self esteem', lies in the ability to be brutally honest with yourself, and your refusal to lie to anyone to satisfy fragile ego's desires to be 'wanted' or 'needed' or considered 'important', by a bunch of people you have lied to; to refuse to practice bullshit the public relations with anybody, including yourself.
31 Oct: US Supreme Court: Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Questions Presented:
1. Whether the CAAF decision -- in conflict with other Circuit Court Standards -- that Petitioner’s Pro Se Ecocentric Amicus, which met restrictive ‘search for truth’, ‘avoid argument duplication’, ‘presents new ideas, arguments, theories, insights, facts and data’, ‘speaks on behalf of an unrepresented party’ and ‘presents a unique perspective’ should be rejected -- whereas RCFP Amicus which only met broad standards, but was approved -- was (i) a procedural due process failure; (ii) Anthropocentric ‘viewpoint discrimination’, (iii) a violation of Petitioner’s “Religious Free speech’ rights.
2. Unlike most religions, Futilitarians Practicing Radical Honesty (PRH) religious speech do not practice ‘Public Relations Image Management’: If PRH ‘religious speech’ is to a Futilitarian, what wearing a turban/hijab is to a Sikh/Muslim, Proselytizing door-to-door is for a Jehovah’s Witness; does the courts ‘indecent language’ rule of general applicability rejection of Petitioner’s PRH religious speech Amicus pass the ‘Sherbert Test’?
3. If Laws of Nature dictate that Sustainable Security is the Sine Qua Non for All Manmade Rights: Does Peak NNR/Oil require an equal protection clause reconsideration of Santa Clara County Corporate Personhood to include Mineral King Locus Standi for Nature’s Resources?
[Follow at US Supreme Court Page]
2. Unlike most religions, Futilitarians Practicing Radical Honesty (PRH) religious speech do not practice ‘Public Relations Image Management’: If PRH ‘religious speech’ is to a Futilitarian, what wearing a turban/hijab is to a Sikh/Muslim, Proselytizing door-to-door is for a Jehovah’s Witness; does the courts ‘indecent language’ rule of general applicability rejection of Petitioner’s PRH religious speech Amicus pass the ‘Sherbert Test’?
3. If Laws of Nature dictate that Sustainable Security is the Sine Qua Non for All Manmade Rights: Does Peak NNR/Oil require an equal protection clause reconsideration of Santa Clara County Corporate Personhood to include Mineral King Locus Standi for Nature’s Resources?
[Follow at US Supreme Court Page]