Arguments concerning the arbitrary, unilateral & unJust dismissal of Pistorius's matter can be viewed:

http://cdadd.com/legal/101-oscar-pistorius-cct-arbitrary-dismissal-stephen-king-terror-of-dark-evil

In the Constitutional Court of South Africa

AFFIDAVIT

1. I, the undersigned, CHRISTOPHER DAVID ADDINGTON, am the Applicant and do hereby make oath & say that:

2. I am a Professional Engineer; a UK, SA & RoI citizen, and making this S38 Application for & on behalf of Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius and for & on behalf of the Public, as the GROSS TRAVESTIES OF JUSTICE affect ALL peoples in South Africa (and, by induction, peoples throughout the world)

   1. I point out that the failings by the Defence Legals & the clear trauma suffered by Pistorius renders Pistorius effectively a person unable to act for himself sufficiently competently, hence that he falls within the ambit of S38(b)

3. I am normally resident at our smallholding, Kalkheuwel, Broederstroom, NWP but have been under enforced exile from SA since September 2006 and temporarily living in the RoI (This Honourable Constitutional Court already has my address & contact details) The reason for enforced exile is due to the gross abuses of powers by various & numerous government departments/employees, especially SA Police, Public Prosecutions, Justices, etc. - which included issuing of bogus warrants of arrest that were blank, or were entirely fabricated. And due to oppressive economic isolation.

4. This matter is one of Urgency due to the massive wastage of Court Time & Resources to date, and the anticipated ongoing wastage of another HC Hearing to pass a new sentence in light of an erroneous & fatally flawed SCA Judgement

5. I apply for condonation of Application Costs & on copies required and on form of service (email) as previously granted by this Constitutional Court

6. I point out to this Honourable Constitutional Court that there is a long history of gross Justice abuses towards me by past & present Justices of the High Courts & also of this Honourable Constitutional Court, and that there is much animosity towards me – for my standing up to numerous Justice abuses and to corporate Organised Crime – numerous court files under my name in the Constitutional Court bear witness to this – and subsequent events over the past decades bear witness to this also – Vis:

   1. Barclays Bank being fined for fraudulent activities, yet protected by Johannesburg HC & this Constitutional Court - for Barclays Bank's fraudulent raid on ABSA Bank; see CCT 35/05 or my website www.cdadd.com;

   2. Pension & Investment frauds by Donald Gordon (& Richard Branson) which the NPA have afforded Gordon unlawful protections by refusing to issue a search warrant on Liberty Life offices. And PWC, Grant Thornton, KPMG, Deloittes, Ernst & Young are ALL involved in globalising these frauds which continue.

   3. The travesty of Justice over Shrien Dewani, in that NPA demonstrated clear contempt of this Constitutional Court by ignoring CC court proceedings concerning Dewani's unlawful rendition to SA;

   4. the travesty of Justice from this Constitutional Court under CCT 74/03 Jaftha v Schoeman, Van Rooyen v Stoltz

   5. the ongoing scam over PSCGG (Poritt, Bennet, Milne) – this was clearly a Jew mafia (NOT to be confused with loving-faith Jews) scam that set out to deliberately destroy Jack Milne's initiative to demonstrate that Institutions such as OM, Sanlam, Liberty were conning the country (& world) – Jew Justices, Jew Legals, Jew Accountants etc. etc., etc. - SAPS & NPA are still blocking investigation into the Jew mafia scam, instead attacking Poritt & Bennett.

   6. the travesty of Justice out of the SCA (J Harms) concerning Jacob Zuma & the political manipulations by the Democratic Alliance (Helen Zille); see my website for paper I wrote that demonstrated the Justice failings.

   7. and numerous other Justice violations, including against Modise Jo Moila, whose premature & mysterious death has been covered up by police, prosecutors & Justices. Pistorius, a whitey had masses of Justice to the extent of gross injustice being the outcome to date, whereas Jo Moila has yet to get one iota of Justice (even posthumously)

   8. I also point out the failings of this Constitutional Court in not providing protection to me from unlawful/unconstitutional destruction of my previous website by diamatrix.co.za (Wayne Diamond), the consequent abuses by the Internet Service Providers Association of South Africa; the unlawful/unconstitutional obstruction of my legitimate communications by MWEB.co.za, all of which was conspired by corporates in South Africa because I have exposed massive corporate fraud scams, which scams have been wrongly protected by this Constitutional Court.

   9. Justice violations out of the Constitutional Court regarding unconstitutional, unlawful/criminal obstruction of legitimate communications by Respondents 3 (MWEB) & 4 (Diamatrix) to the extent that the arguments herein would have been presented much earlier had my legitimate communications NOT been criminally obstructed by these Respondents – so multiple injustices befalls the accused (Pistorius) & others. i.e. the unlawful obstructions by Respondents 3 & 4 have materially impacted upon gross injustices against Pistorius & many others caught up in SA's unjust 'Westminster' Justice system

   10. – hence, I request that the Justices put all hostilities toward me aside and SOLELY address the Justice abuses that has occurred in this matter and which occurred predominantly in the SCA but also in the HC.

7. Consequently I also request that the CC Court direct Respondents 3 & 4 to immediately reinstate my full communications, free of any & all obstructions, and to direct Diamatrix to fully reinstate my website & facilities, free of any obstructions (I point out that Ireland ISPs are also unlawfully obstructing my communications) – so that I might research further aspects in this Pistorius matter so as to provide further & clearer arguments of Justice failings/abuses by HC & SCA & NPA & Defence Legals.

8. The Justice abuses are both SYSTEMIC & SYSTEMATIC in nature – and to understand this it is necessary to briefly paint the background to SA's Justice System, which has commonality to many other systems in the world.

   1. Much of today's global socio-economic turmoil can be attributed to the past gross failings of this Constitutional Court

   2. It is also important to point out that SA's Constitution is NOT the highest Law of SA – it is SUBORDINATE to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – however the UN Courts have failed to establish a Civil UDHR Court so presently there is no recourse of Appeal to the UN Court – this should not allow the CC Court to simply ignore the UDHR.

9. SA's Justice System is a Westminster based system (i.e. an import from the UK), which operates on an effectively closed-shop basis; i.e. Legals represent parties who present cases to other Legals called Judges; it is closed-shop because the Legal profession is a narrow profession – consequently, by induction, collusion/corruption creeps in very quickly and established principles become quickly entrenched. Self litigants are abusively treated by Justices so as to deter self representation

   1. The Westminster system, unjust as it has always been, suffered a severe setback when the Old-Order Apartheid system allowed for collusion to become even more entrenched, and Justice became even more grossly diminished.

   2. However, after much socio-economic turmoil SA negotiated a settlement under a Constitution – and hopes ran high – but to be thwarted by numerous Justice failings out of the Constitutional Court by a 1^st Bench that was grossly misrepresented by over 50% of Jew Justices, whilst Jews represented less than 0.7% of SA's Population, and who worked for Israel (Real & Virtual) rather than for South Africa – the decades & ongoing decline within SA is evidence of this.

   3. One critical factor that was used by the 1^st Bench was the application of pedantic Rules of Court that were structured so as to defeat the very Constitution that the Rules were supposed to effect. It should merely require a brief outline of a Constitutional violation for an application to be considered – but this was thwarted by the 1^st Bench. This is why I have appended MWEB & Diamatrix to this application because of the unlawful/criminal actions by R3 & R4 in obstructing communications that materially impact upon this application – that materially impacts upon Pistorius & the Justice violations that he has endured, and that all of SA (& World) have endured. If the present CC Bench ignore this then it demonstrates that RoC still defeat the Constitution.

   4. In short, SA's Justice system is failing because of SYSTEMIC flaws because of continual references by HC & SCA to old-order judgements, and SYSTEMATIC flaws largely because it is still closed-shop – i.e. sensible arguments fall on deaf ears; or, because of closed-shop, alternative sensible arguments are ignored, such that people ignore what is going on and fail to point out Justice failings that become clear once chaff is removed from mindsets. GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT.

   5. The failing of the Justice arm of Government has part-caused Co-Operative Government (Constitution Ch2) to also fail – causing the Executive & Legislative to also shy away – thus leaving a gap, a chasm, in government – and with this chasm between (& amongst) government arms, corporate Organised Crime has flourished, a global cancer that is causal of global upheavals driving the Radicalisation that prevails, much as Versailles Treaty drove Nazi radicalisation.

   6. It is important to note that ex HC Judge Mervyn King resigned from the Judiciary so as to establish defensive mechanisms (Corporate Governance) so as to protect corporate crime from prosecution, and Jhb Judiciary have very much colluded with this. Which is why Barclays Bank got away with their fraud raid on ABSA, why Donald Gordon, Richard Branson & others are unlawfully protected

   7. It was because of these clear SYSTEMIC & SYSTEMIC JUSTICE FAILINGS that I submitted an application to the Judicial Service Commission for appointment to the Judiciary so as to bring some Professional Engineering sense to what was & still is a grossly flawed Justice system (I append that application below. In light of the ongoing Justice Failings within SA I also resubmit this application to the Judicial Service Commission c/o the Chief Justice)

   8. (One can also see the gross Justice failings under the Westminster System in UK as well – the tragic Stephen Lawrence murder and its subsequent inquiry, trial & acquittal, retrial with fabricated evidence, and unjust appeal which covered-up the fact of fabricated evidence & the question mark against DNA testing)

   9. The contempt shown by President Zuma, Legals, NPA, Public Protector, Western Cape HC toward the Constitutional Court in ignoring the S38 application I brought on behalf of Shrien Dewani clearly demonstrates the Systemic & Systematic undermining of SA Justice System that the CC Bench allowed to happen.

   10. What, then, does SA contribute to emerging nations such a Myanmar/Burma and Ang Sang Suu Kyi, or for other nations – what can Nelson Mandela's failed legacy provide for her & the Peoples of Myanmar/Burma???? In truth – NOTHING – because SA Justice cannot provide meaningful Government for its own peoples.

   11. It requires this Bench of the CC to change and to give proper effect to the Constitution/UDHR

10. Whilst the televising of the Pistorius HC Trial & the SCA Hearing opened up the Justice system to the peoples, and globally, thus affording greater transparency, it must be borne in mind that awareness of a wider, global spotlight creates additional pressures on a Court & its Justices, and to Legals that posture to & preen themselves in the glare of free publicity. To this extent J Masipa, in ensuring that SA was seen as being a leading Justice system, unwittingly provided a super-supersaturation of Justice such that an Injustice was perpetrated – J Masipa allowed minute detail to saturate her mind such that clarity of issues was lost – this was compounded further by the SCA as can be seen from the adverse & unjust Judgement against Pistorius, a travesty. The wood was seen in far too much detail, but not the trees, nor the forest, nor the panorama.

    1. This is not to suggest that televising of trials be stopped, totally to the contrary - trials should be video-recorded, with automatic voice recognition transcription, so that Justice is more transparent – it simply requires time & experience for Justices, Legals & Parties to become familiar with the added pressures created by televised/recorded trials.

    2. Nonetheless the novelty & added pressures clearly caused an injustice through super-saturation of Justice, causing loss of clarity due to irrelevant detail in J Masipa's mind, and the minds of the assessors.

    3. Also, the Defence & NPA Legals were taking advantage of the publicity afforded them due to televising. And clearly this affected the Defence - because they failed to protect their client - evidenced not solely by failing to appeal the wrongful Culpable Homicide conviction – because they too had lost sight of clarity due to the added pressures of global TV, and free advertising. Also, the fact that Defence Legals failed to appeal the HC Judgement indicates collusive closed-shop abuse.

    4. Consequently Pistorius was disadvantaged on many fronts including facing a closed-shop Justice system & one that was pre-occupied with global spotlight through TV. Similarly within the SCA.

11. It is not necessary to go through the entire HC trial or HC Judgement to detect the Justice failings, one only needs read the SCA Judgement.

    1. The most significant Justice failing was that the SCA allowed themselves to be misled by emotives and to pre-empt SUBJECTIVE issues BEFORE OBJECTIVE clarity had been established – and that is crystal clear from the IRRELEVANT opening paragraphs that deal with a 'tragedy of Shakespearean proportions: a young man overcomes huge physical disabilities …... meets a young woman of great natural beauty and a successful model.....'

    2. One might just as well tune into a Walt Disney dream-world film such as Cinderalla's battles against ugly sisters. The SCA FAILED, TOTALLY, by addressing the emotive & subjective issues BEFORE setting out the clear OBJECTIVE circumstances of the tragedy. And then, in stating errors by HC over irrelevant evidence, then wrongly ASSUMED for the Prosecution and against the Accused

    3. By doing so the SCA have transformed a Shakespearean Tragedy into a Dickensian Horror of Horrors.

    4. And, it is important to recognise that it would still have been a tragedy had Pistorius indeed shot an unlawful intruder – it would have been a double-tragedy in the sense that an intruder was so disparitised, far more so under the present distorted Constitutional State than ever under the Old-Order Apartheid State, such that an intruder would have been driven to perpetrate an unlawful & potentially dangerous intrusion.

    5. The SCA TOTALLY FAILED to correct the fundamental, but understandable (to a degree), error by the HC, J Masipa, who nevertheless under the circumstances created an exceptional impression throughout; but to the point of super-saturation creating gross injustice.

    6. And Pistorius' Legals also TOTALLY FAILED because they were pre-occupied with posing & preening to TV. (The mere fact that the Defence Legals failed to appeal the culpable homicide was a gross dereliction/negligence of professional duty by them)

    7. The SCA went to great lengths to give added distortions:

       1. by explaining the terms 'dolus' 'directus', 'eventualis', 'indeterminatus' of determining the nature of a murder – and in so doing the SCA pre-empted their mindsets with the act of murder, as opposed to addressing the facts OBJECTIVELY & upfront.

       2. Greater distortion was added by the SCA comparing Pistorius' actions to that of a bomber, or to bank robbers in a wild shoot out – again pre-emptive distortions to justify a pre-determined outcome

    8. All of the arguments herein clearly demonstrates the gross injustices of a closed-shop Westminster system

12. The OBJECTIVE issues are that:

    1. Pistorius awoke and believed there to be an intruder

    2. He got his gun

    3. he called out, nil reply

    4. he fired shots through a door

    5. it transpired that a person was tragically killed

    6. it transpired that the person killed was Reeva Steenkamp, who was NOT an intruder

    7. Pistorius screamed for help

    8. a double tragedy or still a singular tragedy???? → is an emotive irrelevance insofar as the trial & appeal

13. The SUBJECTIVE issues are:

    1. was Pistorius justified in his belief

    2. was Pistorius justified in his action (of shooting)

    3. was Pistorius' action (of shooting) justified in relation to a 'reasonable man/woman'

    4. and, if Pistorius' actions were NOT that of a 'reasonable man', did Pistorius' physical/mental circumstances mitigate against unreasonable actions by a reasonable man

    5. NOTHING ELSE was of significance to the matter – yet the HC & SCA both went way off-track with emotives & pre-emptive SUBJECTIVE arguments & in unnecessary detail that added even more distortions that all grossly distorted OBJECTIVITY.

14. As a result of the pre-emptive emotive & subjective distortions the NPA wrongly accused Pistorius of murder – despite Pistorius stating his belief of an intruder. Herein lies a Justice error. Whilst any killing must be taken seriously it is nonetheless wrong for a person to be charged with an unlawful killing BEFORE it being determined whether the killing was lawful or unlawful

    1. And this is precisely what an Inquest should be doing - to determine whether a death through claimed self-defence was sufficiently lawful or unlawful, and NOT, initially, through a murder charge with the accused being put at a subjective disadvantage in the eyes of the court & public. And it is true that the novelty of TV publicity created added distortions to the trial.

    2. It is through an Inquest that the OBJECTIVE facts should first be established – had that been done then J Masipa would have had clearer insights allowing for clearer analysis, hence reducing possibility of errors. But which errors were wrongly dealt with by SCA & coupled by SCA to other irrelevant issues so as to produce another Justice failing.

    3. This is just one aspect of a Criminal Procedures Act that creates Justice distortions.

    4. In addition the NPA added additional charges of other past-events that had NOTHING to do with the killing, thus creating further distortions.

    5. Despite HC, J Masipa & assessors, finding NOT Guilty on the added charges it still can only have left an impression concerning the first, murder, charge → a distortion.

    6. Clearly then the Criminal Procedures Act (CPA) is out of step with the Constitution – and this because of ongoing Justice violations by the CC Court. It was my intention, had my application to the Judiciary been reasonably considered & I appointed to have applied a sound engineering perspective to the Justice processes (Civil & Criminal) → but the Constitutional Court failed to uphold the Constitution.

15. It is common knowledge that the HC, despite Pistorius' contradictory evidence (understandable?, in light of PTSD, the trauma of having actually killed RS, the personal (not legal) 'guilt' sense, the added pressures of trials, and the added pressures of TV, even the sense of loss-of-life's-purpose & loss-of-career), accepted that Pistorius was in the belief of there being an intruder. Alternatively stated the NPA failed to prove otherwise, thus Pistorius is entitled to the benefit of doubt, if any had existed. The SCA confirm Pistorius' belief upheld by HC.

    1. Yet the SCA Judgement only addresses this CRITICAL POINT halfway through its Judgement, which is preceded by masses of emotive & subjective irrelevance & legal argument also irrelevant to the critical point – but all of which has caused distortion in the minds of the SCA Justices such that it can only be construed that the SCA Justices sought a conviction and wanted to create a convincing argument to support a pre-determined outcome.

    2. The HC (& SCA) should have first decided this critical point (belief of intruder) – but failed to so do – and this should have been decided BEFORE Pistorius gave evidence (& ideally at Inquest) – thus Pistorius had added confusion to an already confused & stressed mindset (→ is it any wonder that he broke down in court, and contradicted himself in evidence?)

    3. Had the HC correctly determined this point upfront (& even through a killing charge, lawful or unlawful?) then an entirely different Justice outcome would have transpired.

    4. But this reasonable step was NOT done hence Pistorius was disadvantaged/prejudiced

16. Reasonable

    1. Having determined, long after numerous Justice violations, that Pistorius was in the belief of an intruder (regardless of it transpiring: mistaken belief) the next step to consider is the circumstance of 'reasonable''.

    2. Was Pistorius 'reasonable'?

    3. Well, firstly, it was an unreasonable circumstance – vis: there being an intruder (as believed by Pistorius)

    4. Gauteng, is one of, if not 'the', crime capital of the world – and ALL due to unreasonable socio-economic circumstances (largely because of Justice failings out of the Constitutional Court).

    5. And the world is facing increased mass killings - although more current ones are post the tragedy of RS these more recent events can be used in arguments concerning a prior incident, because 'reasonable' now is no different to 'reasonable' then, a few years back.

       1. To that extent I draw the CC Courts attention to a documentary on the Charlie Hebdo & conjunctive (Paris) attacks – aired on UK's BBC2, Wednesday Jan 6, 2015 @ 21h00(UK): 'Three Days of Terror: The Charlie Hebdo Attacks'

       2. It is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of people in Paris & even those caught up in the attacks are to be considered 'reasonable'

       3. They ALL faced an UNREASONABLE event of tragic & horrendous proportions

       4. Yet they ALL acted DIFFERENTLY – some ran, some hid, some of those that hid then ran whilst others obeyed a gunman, another courageously took up a nearby AK47 fired 2 shots before it jammed but missed the gunmen and was then shot & killed by the gunman, …....

       5. it therefore raises the validity of analysing to the Nth degree as to what is 'reasonable' for a 'reasonable man' as being an unreasonable task. However that would make killings the more easier, which is NOT the intention. Yet this is a real issue to be considered regarding Pistorius' actions → was he reasonable? Moreover, was the SCA & HC adequately, reasonably considering this issue & without pre-emptive emotive & subjective mindsets? The latter part the Courts clearly failed on.

       6. The SCA in changing conviction to: ‘Guilty of murder with the accused having had criminal intent in the form of dolus eventualis.’ glaringly omits 'indeterminatus' because the SCA was prejudiced from the outset & as evidenced by the emotive arguments in SCA Judgement that preceded the first critical point (belief of intruder) within that Judgement – vis: that Pistorius sought to murder or criminally murdered RS rather than fire warning shots at an indeterminate intruder – this is a significant difference and shows that the SCA was prejudiced, and as confirmed by half-judgement of irrelevant emotive arguments. The SCA, although explicitly acknowledging 'belief' by Pistorius is a factor that only the HC could determine, implicitly ignores that in the judgement Order, thus confirming a predetermined mindset, a prejudiced mindset, of SCA and all of which explains the first-half of judgement arguments that are irrelevant – i.e. the SCA put in the first-half so as to 'justify' the predetermination.

    6. The SCA failed to consider the circumstance of an aggressive intruder, let alone an armed & vicious intruder, such as in Paris.

       1. There are inherent risks taken on by an intruder – and intruders, although acting unreasonably, are not protected by their unreasonableness, they are endangered as they full-well know (as reasonably interpreted)

       2. there was no answer from within the toilet cubicle – so, if it was vacant then the shots would have merely damaged Pistorius' home, nothing more, and nothing said or done by NPA.

       3. In hindsight (knowing that RS was now inside) is it strange that RS did not reply? – even with knowledge of Pistorius' abilities with & possession of a handgun. This aspect was not addressed by the HC or SCA – see later.

       4. In light of the unreasonable socio-economic circumstance within SA, the knowledge that Gauteng is immersed in crime (crime capital?) it is reasonable to assume the worst when unreasonable circumstances (silence) presents to reasonable shouts (by Pistorius) to a potential intruder.

    7. Much was made of the 9mm Black Talon ammunition – how it makes horrendous holes (an emotive irrelevance – if one is armed for self-defence one doesn't want to mess with air-gun pellets – nor to miss if determined to kill in justifiable self-defence)

       1. And much was made of the 'good grouping of bullets', which the SCA emphasised in bold -

          1. Pistorius was known to be experienced in firearms - so am I, having won many competitions (rifle & pistol, LMGs; .22, .38, .357 magnum, 7.62mm, black-powder 19th Colt revolver etc., and experience with 20mm, 40mm cannons, 4.5 inch twin turrets)

          2. a good grouping with a handgun indicates experience – it is notoriously difficult, virtually IMPOSSIBLE, for an inexperienced person to achieve a good grouping with a handgun, even at short distances, say 10 paces

          3. the 'good grouping' does NOT enhance the argument of intention to kill but SUPPORTS intention to warn – for, if one intended to kill then one would NOT intend a tight group but a widespread group, thus VASTLY INCREASING the probability of achieving at least a disabling hit, if not a kill. The failure to recognise this crucial point was another fatal flaw in reasoning by HC, SCA, NPA, Police.

          4. However, the SCA sought to use this point (of bullets & grouping), and the failure of HC to consider this point, as grounds to uphold the first two 'reserved questions' (of Appeal) regarding dolus. The SCA are totally wrong, because the grouping, type of bullets, or whether a person was in the toilet is irrelevant to the aspect of SCA pre-emptively deciding murder of whatever form once a 'belief of intruder' had been established & accepted by the HC but BEFORE deciding lawful/unlawful, reasonable/unreasonable action of firing – the point being the risk had passed to the intruder by being there AND by not reasonably replying to the shouts; as believed by the gunman, in this case Pistorius.

          5. Consequently the SCA erred in unconstitutionally failing to properly consider the OBJECTIVE facts BEFORE the SUBJECTIVE, and by confusing further an already confused SCA (& HC) Judgement analysis with irrelevancies & emotives.

          6. Consequently the SCA Judgement Order (96/2015) Point 1 is unconstitutional due to lack of constitutionally acceptable analysis & argument by SCA.

       2. From the aforegoing (and I reiterate that my arguments are FAR from exhaustive on any of the issues within the HC & SCA Judgements, because of impediments due to MWEB & Diamatrix criminal obstructions to my communication) it is clear that Pistorius acted perfectly reasonably – Pistorius was more fortunate than the courageous Paris victim who failed to hit the gunman & consequently was killed by the gunman.

       3. In truth, it appears that the courts would have preferred Pistorius had been intruded & killed.

    8. However, let us assume that Pistorius had been unreasonable in terms of 'reasonable man'

       1. We would then have had to consider his specific circumstances.

       2. These were covered extensively by the HC & to a degree by the SCA – but not in a constructive manner in relation to the OBJECTIVE facts

       3. Having now constructed an OBJECTIVE argument herein one would now need to apply some SUBJECTIVE arguments concerning this aspect.

       4. Again, the criminal obstructions by MWEB & Diamatrix (& Eircom & UPC, now Virgin, in Ireland) have prevented me going further.

       5. I shall address the SUBJECTIVE & other important points once I have proper communications

17. The SCA Judgement also erred in its reporting of events:

    1. 'In the early hours of the following morning, screams, gunshots, loud noises and cries for help were heard, emanating from the accused’s house'

    2. According to trial Judgement: sounds then shots came first, NOT the screams

    3. This proves the SCA grossly failed to properly address the OBJECTIVE facts.

    4. Careful scanning of the HC Judgement to SCA Judgement will elicit further SCA failings

18. I reiterate that the arguments herein are NOT exhaustive – criminal communications obstructions by MWEB && Diamatrix (& by Ireland ISPs) have prevented me from reasonably researching other points more fully, to which points I shall address when communications are properly restored. I therefore request that the Constitutional Court direct MWEB & Diamatrix to fully restore my communications free from any obstructions.

    1. Although the arguments herein clearly demonstrate errors within the HC Judgement these errors are understandable in light of added pressures & incorrect/unconstitutional CPA procedures. However the errors by the SCA are a disgrace. The SCA has the benefit of hindsight & of ample reflective time – the SCA failed on both points.

    2. This Constitutional Court must not limit itself to merely determining the outcome of this matter alone, but consider the global devastation caused by past Benches of this Constitutional Court due to their failings in properly addressing the various & numerous matters that have previously been heard.

    3. BUT, there cannot be meaningful redressing of these errors until such time as sound Engineering assessment of SA's imported & defective Westminster system is done; which is why I submitted my application to the HC in 2003; and why I resubmit that application.

19. Let us also consider briefly the wasted resources:

    1. An HC Judge & 2 Assessors (Advocates), 2 Defence Advocates, 2 State Advocates, Attorneys (say) 2 each side = 4, 1 Interpreter, 4 Court Staff (say), 5 SCA Judges, 3 SCA Court Staff (say)

    2. That gives 23 people – and they reached the wrong conclusion –> who else in SA gets this kind of Resources in trials? (Jo Moila has yet to get)

    3. Surely this is CRYSTAL CLEAR evidence that SA's (Westminster) Justice system 'vehicle' is broken down – and needs re-engineering

    4. Koeberg Power Station experienced a damaged rotor some 15 years ago – it might have taken more than 30 to fix it but fix it they did, and in far less time that SA's Justice system has taken to reach erroneous conclusions in this matter.

    5. I point out that besides watching snips of TV broadcast that my time on this matter consisted of reading the SCA Judgement once through quickly & then drafting this application in under 24 man-hours – i.e. application of Professional Engineering does bring sound results.

20. We should also now need to consider the actions/inactions by Reeva Steenkamp, which the SCA failed to do when, in finding the HC in error, the SCA then wrongly leapt to the ASSUMPTION that Pistorius must therefore be guilty of murder. The purpose herein is not to take advantage of a deceased person but to attempt a reasonable explanation for what occurred – and one can observe behaviour of persons caught up in the Paris attacks, who ALL behaved in a number of very different ways, to draw other possible explanations. But, with the accepted 'belief of intruder' by Pistorius, let us assume:

    1. that RS got up at around 3am to go to the bathroom/toilet and in so doing disturbed Pistorius

    2. Pistorius then shortly became awakened but disorientated & hears a noise & becomes alarmed

    3. in Pistorius shouting out it must have caused RS concern such that she hid in the toilet & closing the door & remaining silent so as not to attract attention of an intruder to herself

    4. the silence from (the person now known to be RS) inside the toilet indicated to Pistorius that either no one was in the toilet, or someone, an intruder, was biding their time.

    5. If the former then shooting is irrelevant, if the latter warning shot/s was/were justified

    6. Which circumstance is not Murder nor Culpable Homicide, nor was it adequately proved either way on the SUBJECTIVE analysis of evidence, and any doubt (which is unlikely not to be) must the rest with Defence

    7. Transpose RS into Paris situation - and hiding – should she have obeyed a gunman calling for hiding people to come out – those that did, some were shot some not – and those that remained hidden, some were found & shot, some not – some were elsewheres & confronted, some were shot, some not -> damned if you do, damned if you don't

    8. Similarly for Pistorius, he has been damned for acting, he could easily have been damned (& dead) had he not – 'Paris-style Roulette'?

    9. RS's death was an immense tragedy caused by mistaken belief, and unfortunate choices by both RS & OLCP – and OLCP has to live with that personal 'guilt' – there is nothing to suggest wilful or negligent actions that a reasonable man would not have done – the errors & gross over-Justice producing injustices from the HC and the gross errors & Dickensian Horrors from the SCA have made matters worse – and shown clear Justice failings (Systemic & Systematic)

    10. It is pointed again out that the Constitution is subordinate to the UDHR, so Law cannot be so construed as to defeat the UDHR, and the UDHR recognises the right to protect one's own life, and even to take up arms against threat of oppression. Consequently the Law must be applied correctly and not in such a manner as to violate the Constitution or the UDHR

21. Regarding Forensic Evidence: I draw the Constitutional Court's attention to my Professional Engineering R&D that has disproved Opticks, and shown that e≠mc², consequently this raises valid & significant questions against DNA testing & evidence; people are presently being wrongly convicted. It also impacts upon all spheres of science including medicine; and through defective mathematics into socio-economic sciences; which is why so many economics models awarded Nobel Prizes are wrong

    1. See: http://cdadd.com/physics-engineering/28-captain-s-log-stardate-06-particle-18-sigma-18-new-science-that-counters-disproves-newton-s-opticks

    2. Academia Powers are in hostile denial, and Ireland Ch Justice Denham & Justice Hardiman oppressively suppress this new evidence;

       1. http://cdadd.com/legal/89-scc-court-royal-irish-academy-discrimination-dishonesty-cronyism-fraud

    3. UCT & other University Chancellors are also blocking my R&D communications and obstructing research progress.

22. In Conclusion:

    1. The Judgement by the SCA is a travesty of Justice and this Constitutional Court are obligated to rule that the unconstitutional nature of the arguments in the SCA Judgement render the Judgement unsound

    2. The Judgement by the HC is a Justice Failing due to unwitting errors by Justice Masipa & assessors and the Constitutional Court are obligated to rule the unconstitutional arguments in the Judgement render the Judgement unsound

    3. That the Constitutional Court directs MWEB & Diamatrix to fully restore my communications free of any obstructions so that I may pursue further R&D into significant failings in this tragedy, and more importantly the SCA's erroneous Judgement

    4. That the Constitutional Court direct NPA & SAPS to properly investigate the premature & mysterious death of Modise Jo Moila

    5. That the Constitutional Court direct NPA to process search warrant for SAPS & other authorities to effect searches on Donald Gordon & Richard Branson & their businesses.

    6. Finally, I reiterate that the SYSTEMIC & SYSTEMATIC JUSTICE FAILINGS are severe, and I resubmit my application to the Judicial Service Commission c/o Chief Justice for consideration of my appointment to Judiciary so as to address these & numerous other Justice failings.

January 8 - 10, 2016

Christopher David Addington Pr.Eng.

Deponent

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

+353 (0)86 168 4318

Transmitted by email, hence unsigned