To: Pretoria High Court (J Masipa), Supreme Court of Appeal & Constitutional Court
CC: as per addressees & general
From Chris Addington Pr.Eng.
March 16, 2015
Re: Oscar Pistorius – Constitutional Court GROSS inJustice Judgement –> What Options??????
The Shakespearean Tragedy
that became a
Dickensian Horror of Horrors
is now a
Steven King: Terror of Dark Evil
The Constitutional Court S38 Application can be viewed:
http://cdadd.com/legal/90-cct-s38-oscar-pistorius-sca-judgement-gross-travesty-of-justice-hc
________________________________
It cannot be OVER-STRESSED that Reeva Steenkamp's killing was an immense tragedy – similar to Stephen Lawrence's murder in London – or Anni Dewani's murder (botched hijack) and abuses against & unlawful rendition of Shrien Dewani; BUT, these tragedies have paled into insignificance compared to the gross Justice failings abuses perpetrated in the consequent & vicious legal-revenge soapies pertaining to Pistorius.
The decision out of the Constitutional Court regarding OLC Pistorius is another gross Justice violation which adds weight to the gross injustices of Double Jeopardy proceedings – and which all adds to the overwhelming evidence of a broken-down Justice System in South Africa; which is based upon the old & broken-down Westminster System blended with masses of old-order Apartheid evil unpleasantries.
One should not simply look to the Justice violations, as set out herein, which are not exhaustive, but look to the realities within SA (& World) of the rapidly increasing disparities AND the rapid increase in the numbers so increasingly disparitised –> a recipe for forthcoming revolution.
All of which largely stems from past & late CJ Chaskalson's refusal to address the fundamental Socio-Economy factors within (amongst other matters) the matters of CCT 74/03 Jaftha v Schoeman, Van Rooyen v Stoltz; CCT 35/05 Barclays Bank (Absa/1000), and especially concerning the Double (Triple, Quadruple) jeopardy perpetrated against Wouter Basson (SA's Dr Death) (CCT 30/03); the gross Justice violations out of the SCA regarding Jacob Zuma and Arms Deal allegations (see cdadd.com:- Zuma, SCA Judgement – Bad JuJu), etc.
A search of the Constitutional Court website yields no details of case application regarding Pistorius, papers or even decision – Pistorius's case is simply rejected – arbitrarily & unilaterally, as reported by the media – and no Court documentation of any sort for public viewing.
An INTELLECTUAL VOID exists within the Constitutional Court – again, all stemming from the grossly disproportionate representation of Jew Justices on the first Bench – and which void existed through successive benches and, as can be seen with Pistorius's case, exists with the present Bench.
The Constitution was NEVER intended to be abusively usurped by elitist Justices intent on maintaining their god-like status.
(from ConstCourt website, History: 'Why did South Africa need a Constitutional Court?
In 1994, the judiciary was overwhelmingly white (and male) and therefore limited in its legitimacy and its capacity to draw on the sense of justice of all communities and both sexes. ….')
It was NOT simply white & male, but also that Jew Judges, a Jew mafia (NOT to bee confused with loving-faith Jews) were disproportionately controlling the Courts & undermining Justice – this was no different AFTER the Constitutional Court was formed because Jew Judges controlled the ConstCourt & were working for Israel (Virtual & Real) – view first Judges on website.
One can also plainly see the VOID within the Constitutional Court's sense of Justice – by simply observing the massive gaps in case numbers under Judgements on the Court's website.... NUMEROUS matters are arbitrarily & unilaterally dismissed – and many by CJ Chaskalson alone, and again in violation of the Constitution.
Pistorius's highly publicised Court matter was arbitrarily & unilaterally dismissed by the ConstCourt – which confirms that there is no transparency within the Constitutional Court!!!
Yet more gross Justice violations out of SA's Constitutional Court
The nett effect of the abuse out of the ConstCourt is that Pistorius's matter is to be referred back to the High Court for a new sentencing determination based upon the grossly defective Judgement & unjust Ruling by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
There are a number of substantive & procedural flaws regarding this direction/ruling from the SCA – as outlined below (by no means exhaustive):-
First: The Constitution COMPELS through Oath of Office (Schedule 2 of Constitution; Oaths & Solemn Affirmations) (see full text below) – of which:-
Judge A B ….... ' ….... will uphold and protect the Constitution and the human rights entrenched in it, and will administer justice to all persons alike without fear, favour or prejudice, in accordance with the Constitution and the law. …. '
The direction from the SCA compels that J Masipa must now show FAVOUR to the SCA direction, in that J Masipa must now accept, and against her own previous Judgement, a unilateral decision from the SCA, and which SCA decision was GROSSLY flawed in REASONING & in FACT & in INTERPRETATION - vis: that Pistorius is now found to be guilty.
Clearly the import of the SCA Judgement, vis: to direct a Judgewhat to decide in a matter, is itself a violation of any Judge's Oath – and consequently cannot be upheld by J Masipa or any other Judge
It follows that J Masipa is compelled by Oath of Office to properly hear ALL evidence in light of the SCA reasoning → which is in effect a new trial.
Second: The flawed reasoning from the SCA has opened up new insights into the kinds of circumstances that Pistorius encountered (as set out in the S38 submission by the writer) – it follows that these new insights (from Paris & other terror attacks) present as new evidence subsequent to the Pistorius trial but relevant to Pistorius's actions/inactions, reasonable/unreasonable, etc. that brought about the tragedy – and justifies a new Appeal.
NOTE: a NEW Appeal → if Prosecution can appeal then so too can Defence in light of new evidence, which the Paris & other attacks present. And, in Appealing, argue against prior SCA Judgement based upon flawed and/or incomplete reasoning and on new evidence.
Third: The grossly flawed & ERRONEOUS interpretations & FACTUAL ERRORS by the SCA of the HC (J Masipa) Judgement are also grounds for Appeal to the SCA → grouping, ammunition, alternative reasonable options open to Pistorius, Judges disregarding 'belief of intruder', etc.
Fourth: The arguments concerning Double (Triple, Quadruple) Jeopardy by the writer in the Wouter Basson Constitutional Court Case CCT 30/03 are given added weight to by the gross Justice violations in the Stephen Lawrence retrial & appeal in which fabricated evidence was submitted by prosecution, questionable DNA evidence, and questionable hand-written note were the bases for a wrongful conviction & appeal denial.
Similarly, the world is now seeing new 'evidence' 'found' at a residence previously owned by OJ Simpson.
Coupled with the arguments in the Dr Death matter, the Lawrence & Simpson cases alone show the extent of intense power abuse that prosecutors can wield on individuals – it leaves the doors wide open for evidence to be purposefully withheld only for it to magically appear later, and for a second chance of prosecution – much as DA Leader Helen Zille did against Jacob Zuma regarding allegations of Zuma's Arms Deal frauds.
Double Jeopardy (Triple, Quadruple) does far more harm to Justice Systems than not.
The correct course of action would be for Pistorius's Legals to initiate a new appeal to the SCA based upon:
-
the NEW evidence (of widely diverse reasonable behaviour by widely diverse reasonable people in unreasonable circumstances) from the Paris attacks as set out in my S38 Application to the Constitutional Court
-
the GROSS MISINTERPRETATIONS by the SCA Judges of the material issues within the HC Judgement
-
the procedural & substantive unfairness by the SCA Judges in not considering ALL material evidence
-
the procedural & substantive unfairness by HC Judge Masipa in not correctly considering ALL material evidence
-
the SIGNIFICANT FACTUAL errors by the SCA Judges as can be observed within the SCA Judgement & comparing to HC Judgement.
-
The SIGNIFICANT INTERPRETIVE errors by the SCA Judges of the evidence in toto & certainly pertaining to the grouping, ammunition, reasonable actions, & alternative reasonable options open to Pistorius (call police ??????)
…..... BUT …......Pistorius's legal team failed to challenge the original conviction & sentence – Pistorius's team is unlikely to challenge the SCA's grossly flawed & erroneous Judgement – because Pistorius's legals are not going to risk their professional standing against the Supreme Court of Appeal –> a reality of closed-shop, hence corrupt, inJustice Systems …....
….. a Steven King: Terror of Dark Evil
Sincerely
Chris Addington Pr.Eng.
Schedule 2 …..6 Oath or solemn affirmation of Judicial Officers
(1) Each judge or acting judge, before the Chief Justice or another judge designated by the Chief Justice, must swear or affirm as follows:
I, A.B., swear/solemnly affirm that, as a Judge of the Constitutional Court/Supreme Court of Appeal/High Court/ E.F. Court, I will be faithful to the Republic of South Africa, will uphold and protect the Constitution and the human rights entrenched in it, and will administer justice to all persons alike without fear, favour or prejudice, in accordance with the Constitution and the law.
(In the case of an oath: So help me God.)
(2) A person appointed to the office of Chief Justice who is not already a judge at the time of that appointment must swear or affirm before the Deputy Chief Justice, or failing that judge, the next most senior available judge of the Constitutional Court.
(3) Judicial officers, and acting judicial officers, other than judges, must swear/affirm in terms of national legislation.