RH Court Records:
US Supreme Court:
Alien on Pale Blue Dot vs. Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press:
US Supreme Court documents which refer to Media's Abuse of Publicity Power in Norway v. Breivik: Petition for Writ of Certiorari (pg.30)
|
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. |
It is in the sustainable security interest of countries and their citizens that drunk sailor politicians, bankers and CEO’s in Bangkok, who abuse natures finite resources, for short term political status or profits, are sobered up with freezing – Seal Team Six or Petraeus Drones - doses of resource scarcity consequences reality!
In a Post Peak NNR/Oil World it is imperative to publicly recognize that any citizen who supports the Inalienable Right to Breed, Consume and/or Vote; and/or whose procreation and/or consumption lifestyle is above the nation’s carrying capacity are contributing towards resource scarcity, and are consequently PRO-WAR (class/race civil war, and/or national resource war) irrespective of their verbal diarrhoea ‘anti-war’ or ‘civil rights’ rhetoric. In our Post PeakNNR/Oil globalized world of 7 billion citizens and exponentially declining per capita supply of all goods; aggravating resource scarcity potential for race/class civil and international resource wars; the greater the necessity for the limitation of the right for ‘breeding/consumption war combatants’ – who insist on abusing their publicity power, and refuse to practice honourable sincere peacenik scientific journalism -- in highly controversial resource scarcity national security trials. |
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? |
Reasons for Granting Writ:1. Amici are important contributors to judicial decision making, all viewpoints which pass relevant broad or restrictive tests arguments should be considered.
2. USCAAF decision is a departure from Supreme Court & Appellate Court Standards. 3. Courts Reasons for rejecting Petitioner’s Amicus: (i) Judicial Discretion, (ii) Pro Se Non-Party, (iii) Not an Attorney, (iv) Indecent Language, and (v) lack of coherent argument; are not justified. 4. Petitioner’s Coherent Pro Se Expert Layperson Amicus provides Court with Ecocentric Sustainable Security ‘Laws of Nature’ are Sine Qua Non of all other Rights and Radical Honesty Religious Speech Information Beyond its Notice or Expertise to assist Bigger Picture ‘Rule of Law’ Judicial Decision making. |
Parties in: Alien on Pale Blue Dot vs. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Respondents: 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.
Respondents: 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 |
Documents Filed:
31 October:
* Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (PDF) * Petition for Writ of Certiorari (PDF) * Proof of Service (PDF) |
02 November:
* Proof of Mailing (PDF) 11 November: * Notice of Interest: Dr. Brad Blanton & Radical Honesty (PDF) |
31 Oct: In Forma Pauperis Petition for Writ Certiorari Served on Respondents:
Electronic Service to Respondents: * Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: Counsel: Mr. Gregg P. Leslie; * Center for Constitutional Rights, et al: Counsel: Mr. Shayana D. Kadilal; * Solicitor General of the United States: United States Government; * United States of America & Judge Lind: Counsel: Captain Chad M. Fisher. Transparency Courtesy Copies: * William A. DeCicco: United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces: Clerk of the Court; * Pfc Bradley Manning’s Counsel: David Coombs Esq; * Chief Judge Col. Denise Lind, U.S. Army Trial Judiciary, 1st Judicial Cir.: Judge Lind. Attached Please find: * Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; * Petition for Writ of Certiorari; * Proof of Service
*** PLEASE NOTE: CONSENT TO EMAIL SERVICE *** In consideration of (a) my In Forma Pauperis Status; and (b) costs of International Airmail Postage to USA from South Africa; and (c) saving paper and transportation energy: If you require a copy of this brief in hardcopy, sent by International Airmail Postage, please notify me of such request, asap. In the absence of such request, I shall conclude that you consent to being served by email. To be printed on 02 November 2012 and posted to US Supreme Court, by International Registered Airmail. OVERVIEW OF APPLICATION: In the Supreme Court of the United States Petitioner: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v. Respondents: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), CCR; USA v. Judge Denise Lind, et al |
02 Nov: Updated to Respondents: Service to Supreme Court Registrar Info:
Notice to Respondents: Subject: RE: USC-Cert: Alien on Pale Blue Dot vs. RFCP et al - per Electronic Service
[1] Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Enclosures updated: (a) High Court Capetown Clerk In Forma Pauperis Order; (b) Petitioner's California Marriage Certificate)
[2] Post Office Receipt for 02 November 2012: Petition mailed to US Supreme Court Clerk, expected time of delivery (14 days): ETA 16 November 2012.
[1] Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Enclosures updated: (a) High Court Capetown Clerk In Forma Pauperis Order; (b) Petitioner's California Marriage Certificate)
[2] Post Office Receipt for 02 November 2012: Petition mailed to US Supreme Court Clerk, expected time of delivery (14 days): ETA 16 November 2012.
11 Nov: Notice of Dr. Blanton 'No Interest' & Radical Honesty 'Unknown Interest':
Notice (PDF) submitted to Parties and Court: Subject: USSC: Alien vs. RCFP -- Notice of Brad Blanton & Radical Honesty Community Interest - Elec.Svc
* Notice of ‘No Interest’ from Dr. Brad Blanton and ‘Unknown Interest’ from the Radical Honesty Community.
* Certification of International Mailing of Notice
Working Hypothesis Conclusion: Dr. Blanton’s Interest:
Petitioner is the only member of the Radical Honesty community who has practiced brutal honesty in court proceedings, and been imprisoned for expressing her brutal honest opinions in a court of law (1 Year Prison Sentence for Contempt of Court by Magistrate ADS Meyer: George, South Africa) and to a politician (1 Month Prison & 3 Year Suspended Sentence: Capetown).
I imagine, Dr. Blanton’s alleged lack of interest in the matter, is that if the Justices do decide to hear the matter, he fears he will be cited for contempt of court, if he expresses his brutally honest opinions to the Justices. It is easier for Dr. Blanton to keep his beliefs about how superior he is to mindfucked Supreme Court Justices stuck in stare decisis ‘I think, therefore I am’ la la land, without being forced into Colonel Jessop’s ‘eyeball-to-eyeball’ position of choosing whether to (a) decide to practice ‘You can’t handle the truth’ radical honesty in the court, and risk the Justices contempt; or (b) exposing his lack of courage to practice what he preaches when he finds himself in a court room.
Conclusion: Radical Honesty Community’s Interest:
In the absence of the Respondents, or Dr. Blanton informing the Radical Honesty community of this application, they shall remain unaware of it, and uninformed about it, and it is unknown what their interest, if any, would be.
* Notice of ‘No Interest’ from Dr. Brad Blanton and ‘Unknown Interest’ from the Radical Honesty Community.
* Certification of International Mailing of Notice
Working Hypothesis Conclusion: Dr. Blanton’s Interest:
Petitioner is the only member of the Radical Honesty community who has practiced brutal honesty in court proceedings, and been imprisoned for expressing her brutal honest opinions in a court of law (1 Year Prison Sentence for Contempt of Court by Magistrate ADS Meyer: George, South Africa) and to a politician (1 Month Prison & 3 Year Suspended Sentence: Capetown).
I imagine, Dr. Blanton’s alleged lack of interest in the matter, is that if the Justices do decide to hear the matter, he fears he will be cited for contempt of court, if he expresses his brutally honest opinions to the Justices. It is easier for Dr. Blanton to keep his beliefs about how superior he is to mindfucked Supreme Court Justices stuck in stare decisis ‘I think, therefore I am’ la la land, without being forced into Colonel Jessop’s ‘eyeball-to-eyeball’ position of choosing whether to (a) decide to practice ‘You can’t handle the truth’ radical honesty in the court, and risk the Justices contempt; or (b) exposing his lack of courage to practice what he preaches when he finds himself in a court room.
Conclusion: Radical Honesty Community’s Interest:
In the absence of the Respondents, or Dr. Blanton informing the Radical Honesty community of this application, they shall remain unaware of it, and uninformed about it, and it is unknown what their interest, if any, would be.