Prof. Denis Alland, Univ. Paris II; UNHCR Rep. (1989-97), ECRE & ELENA Refugee Law Expert Declares Legal War on African White Refugees

Denis Alland, Professor of Public Law at the Universite Pantheon-Assas Paris II; UNHCR Representative (1989-97), Assessor in Refugee Appeals Commission, European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and European Legal Network on Asylum (ELENA) Refugee Law Expert, has decided to sue Jus Sanguinis to demand they delete the webpage: “Boer Volkstaat or Jus Sanguinis ‘EU’ Citizenship for African White Refugees Petition & Briefing Paper submitted to Prof. Denis Alland”.

Prof. Alland’s legal declaration of war, was formally acknowledged, with a letter to his Legal Counsel: French UNHCR Rep., EU Council on Refugees & Exiles (ECRE) and EU Legal Network on Asylum (ELENA) Refugee Law Expert, Prof. Denis Alland Demands to Delete Jus Sanguinis Webpage: African White Refugees Petition to Prof. Alland

I acknowledge receipt of Prof. Alland’s email sent Sat 2/5/2011 10:38 AM:

“I understand that you will not delete the page, wich is the only thing I was asking for. My counsel is in charge. Moreover, you are not allowed to publish a private correspondance.”

Issues of Response:

• Prof. Alland’s request for Censorship from Public’s Right to Know of Information in the Public Interest: African White Refugee Petition to Prof. Alland
• Prof. Denis Alland, EU Council on Refugees & Exiles (ECRE) and EU Legal Network on Asylum (ELENA) Refugee Law Expert
• Demands to Delete Jus Sanguinis Webpage: African White Refugees Petition to Prof. Alland
• Clash of Multi-cultural Laws: Prof. Alland’s Culture of Secrecy vs. Radical Honesty Culture of Transparency: Radical Honesty Protocol regarding alleged ‘Private Correspondence’.
• Issue of Radical Honesty being a Culture and Religion; or Refugee Status, is currently before SA Constitutional Court
• SA & Int’l Law in Regards to Invoking Choice of Culture Law

[1] Prof. Alland’s Request for Censorship from Public’s Right to Know of Information in the Public Interest: African White Refugee Petition to Prof. Alland:

Prof. Alland’s request for deletion of webpages refers to:

• The Jus Sanguinis Boer Volkstaat; or Jus Sanguinis Right of Return for African White Refugees Petition and Briefing Paper sent to his Office (i) via the French Embassy, on Wednesday, December 08, 2010 2:19 AM (ii) by Jus Sanguinis on Friday, December 10, 2010 3:24 PM, (iii) by Jus Sanguinis on 27/01/11 00:10. The submission c/o and via the French Embassy, Pretoria, and updates are documented at: http://www.jussanguinis.com/JS-RoR/fr/ELENA_Dennis-Alland-Prof.htm

   

• The Why We Are White Refugees blogpost setup to transparently document the Jus Sanguinis correspondence with Prof. Alland, regarding his complaints and legal threats demanding the deletion of aforementioned page, while refusing to provide any legal statutory justification for his alleged demands of ‘illegal publishing’: http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2011/02/french-unhcr-rep-eu-legal-network-on.html

[2] Prof. Denis Alland, EU Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and EU Legal Nertwork on Asylum (ELENA) Refugee Law Expert:

The European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) lists Prof. Alland’s name, address and contact details as a “Lawyer and Legal Expert with an Overall Knowledge of Refugee Law and Policy”, in their European Legal Network on Asylum (ELENA) Index (page 35).

According to ECRE: European Legal Network on Asylum (ELENA):

The European Legal Network on Asylum (ELENA) is a forum for legal practitioners who aim to promote the highest human rights standards for the treatment of refugees, asylum seekers and other persons in need of international protection in their counselling and advocacy work.

The ELENA Index, lists Prof. Alland on page 35, as follows:

VIII.. LAWYERS AND LEGAL EXPERTS WITH AN OVERALL KNOWLEDGE OF REFUGEE LAW AND POLICY
Denis Alland Professor in Public Law at the Université Panthéon-Assas Paris II Institut Michel Villey pour la culture juridique et la philosophie du droit Université Panthéon-Assas (Paris II) 1, rue d’Ulm F-75005 PARIS Tel.: (1) 44 41 89 93

Nowhere does it state that Prof. Alland is a bigot towards African White Refugees, and refuses to receive Petitions from African White Refugees. To the contrary the document implies that ELENA endorse the rule of law – international and national – for all Refugees. The documentation sent to Prof. Alland – African White Refugees Petition and Briefing Paper – document in great detail, the International Just War, Jus Sanguinis and other Legal Theory justifications for how and why Boer Afrikaners should be considered African White Refugees, as a result of among others – the African National Congress (ANC) and Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM) Truth and Reconciliation (TRC) Fraud.
Prof. Alland wishes to pretend to the world that he never received this petition and Briefing Paper? He wants all public knowledge of the Petition to himself to be deleted from the Internet, as if he never received it; and it does not exist? Why? Does Prof. Alland think that African White Refugees are not entitled to International Rule of Law Protection? Does Prof. Alland endorse the Persecution of African White Refugees?

[3] Demands to Delete Jus Sanguinis Webpage: African White Refugees Petition to Prof. Alland:

On behalf of Jus Sanguinis, I informed Prof. Alland that:

“I do not think there is a law that says it is illegal to post a petition to French Professors, Politicians or Academics for the public to read; but if you say that there is such a law which says it is illegal to publish such a petition, please be so kind as to inform me of it.” (Email sent on 1/27/2011 1:10 AM)

“It is irrelevant whether you are a Professor or King Louix XIV reincarnated; if you insist any action I have taken is ‘illegal’, in order to coerce my behaviour; you must provide me with the statutory law proving your allegations of ‘illegality’. Please provide this statute, because I am not aware of any such statutory law, that says I am prohibited of publishing the contents of a Petition letter sent to your office as detailed in public literature, by among others ELENA.” (Email sent on Friday 2/4/2011 11:13 PM).

Once the goals of the Petition are accomplished; i.e. when African White Refugees are given international and EU political and legal recognition for their efforts to establish a Boer Volkstaat; and/or African White Refugees are granted Jus Sanguinis Right of Return EU citizenship, then, I imagine the webpage can be removed. Until then, you are being petitioned by African White Refugees to speak up and demonstrate your concern for Refugees as impartial and fair, and that you – and other Petition recipients – are not bigoted against White Refugees. (Email sent on Friday 2/4/2011 11:13 PM).

Please demonstrate that you support the rule of law for African White Refugees, when provided the evidence for how they have been defrauded, by the Anti-Apartheid Movement and ANC’s Truth and Reconciliation Fraud. (Email sent on Friday 2/4/2011 11:13 PM).

[4] Clash of Multi-cultural Laws: Prof. Alland’s Culture of Secrecy vs Radical Honesty Culture of Transparency: Radical Honesty Protocol regarding alleged ‘Private Correspondence’:

I am a member of the Radical Honesty culture and religion.

Members of Radical Honest do NOT PRACTICE SECRECY OR CONFIDENTIALITY BY DEFAULT. To the Contrary our default is Honesty, Honour and Transparency. If we have a problem with someone we confront that person with our problem, to their face.

If Prof. Alland or his counsel want to send me anything confidential or ‘secret’; then you are required to get my permission for such secrecy. In order to get my permission; you need to provide me with valid written reasons for why you want me to violate my culture of honour, honesty, transparency to be subservient to your demands that I practice secrecy, lies and deception, perhaps because Prof. Alland has a fragile ego; and prefers to bullshit the world with some fake public relations persona, about ‘human rights’ and ‘philosophical argument’, which he lacks the intellectual, psychological and legal cohones to put into practice.

[5] Issue of Radical Honesty being a Culture and Religion; or Refugee Status, is currently before SA Constitutional Court:

RADICAL HONESTY SA, is a culture and religion founded on the practice of Radical Honesty, i.e. Being Specific About Anger and Forgiveness processes, i.e. the Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract, as excerpted from Dr. Brad Blanton’s book, Practicing Radical Honesty: How to Complete the Past, Stay in the Present and Build a Future with a Little Help from Your Friends.

Dr. Blanton: Founder of Radical Honesty culture and Religion (Futilitarianism), is:

1. President and CEO of Radical Honesty Enterprises Sparrowhawk Book Publishing and The Center for Radical Honesty, both dedicated to promoting honesty in the world;
2. Former candidate for Congress (Green Independent & Democratic Party) in 2004 and 2006, on the platform of ‘Honesty in Politics’;
3. Pope of the Radical Honesty Futilitarian Church; i.e. “Dr. Truth” ;
4. Author of (a) Radical Honesty: How To Transform your Life by Telling the Truth; (b) Practicing Radical Honesty: How to Complete the Past, Stay in the Present and Build a Future with a Little Help from Your Friends, (c) Honest to God: A Change of Heart that Can Change the World, with Neale Donald Walsh (Conversations with God series); (d) Radical Parenting: Seven Steps to a Functional Family in a Dysfunctional World; (e) The Truthtellers: Stories of Success by Radically Honest People and (f) Beyond Good and Evil: The Eternal Split-Second-Sound-Light-Being; (g) Some New Kind of Trailer Trash.

As a rule-of-law political activist, I endorse the rule-of-law for all, rich, poor, white, black, left and right, religious or atheist. I filed my submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on 18 January 1999, wherein I detailed my willingness to donate my entire inheritance to facilitate sincere Truth and Forgiveness. I am separated (filed for divorce) from African-American Demian Emile Johnson, who is, and has been, incarcerated in California Dept. of Corrections, for the entire duration of our marriage . In addition to Radical Honesty I have been involved in non-violent civil disobedience actions on behalf of my former husband, Greenpeace, Amnesty Int’l, Pacific Inst. for Criminal Justice, Jericho 98, Crack the CIA, The Disclosure Project, New Abolitionist, Justice for Timothy McVeigh, Alliance for Democracy, Boycott 2010 World Cup, Right of Return for African White Refugees, et al. I am 44 years old, have never been on welfare, have used an IUD as contraception since the age of 19, and hence has never been pregnant, nor had an abortion. I have lived an ecological small footprint life; to avoid aggravating overpopulation, resource wars; materialist consumerism and resource depletion.

As the only member of the Radical Honesty culture and religion in South Africa, I currently have two applications before the SA Constitutional Court, of possible relevance to this matter.

(1) CCT 23-10: Citizen v. McBride: First Amicus Curiae (Lara Johnstone)

The Application was approved by the Chief Justice on 03 May 2010: “Ms. Lara Johnstone, Member of Radical Honesty Culture and Religion, is admitted as an Amicus Curiae” (PDF). The Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae in Support of a Population Policy Common Sense Interpretation of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act (PDF), asks the court, among others to confirm whether Radical Honesty is a culture and religion; or a refugee status, and argues that the TRC social contract was a fraud (PDF).

The application is supported by two expert witnesses:

1. Written Statement by Consent of Brad Blanton, Ph.D, to testify as expert witness to: Practicing Radical Honesty and Futilitarianism; i.e. Radical Honesty about Anger and Forgiveness; and Paradigms and Contexts: The Revolution of Consciousness (PDF); and Affidavit of Brad Blanton, Ph.D, evidencing the legal, psychological, and socio-political ‘citizens privilege’, Nuremberg Principles skills and competencies of Individual Responsibility, required for acts of civil disobedience to perceived illegitimate authority; and their application to the common law ‘reasonableness test’; in terms of Criminal Procedure Act 51, of 1977: § 213: Proof of Written Statement by Consent; & § 171 & 172: Evidence on Commission (PDF)].
2. Written Statement of Consent by T. Michael Maher, Ph.D, to testify as expert witness for How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection and Media Framing and Salience of the Population Issue (PDF) and Study: How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection (PDF)

(2) CCT 06-11: Radical Honesty SA and another v. SANEF and others:

This Radical Honesty SA Application was filed against 88 SA Media respondents, including the SANEF Press Council, for among others: (A) various SA media editors endorsement of the political and legal persecution of African White Refugees; (B) their practice of deliberate censorship of African White Refugee issues from the South African people’s right to know; and (C) for their Censorship of Media – TRC FRAUD – Corruption

1. Notice of Motion: Application for Direct Access for a Writ of Habeus Mentem and Certiorari/Review (PDF)
2. Founding Affidavit of Lara Johnstone (PDF)

[6] SA & Int’l Law in Regards to Invoking Choice of Cultural Law:

In the event Prof. Alland wishes to sue me for not abiding by his culture of secrecy, deception and lies; I shall invoke the defence of Habeus Mentem – the right of a wo/man to their own mind and culture — invoked in accordance with the Constitutional rights to invoking cultural law in S. 15 (3), 30, 31, and 185, and psychological integrity in Section 12; the former which may require the application of choice of law rules.

[a] The Constitution provides an entitlement for invoking cultural law in S. 15 (3), 30, 31, and 185, which require the application of choice of law rules.

[b] Ex parte Minister of Native Affairs: In re Yako v Beyi 1948 (1) SA 388 (A) at 397: Appellate Division held that neither common nor customary law was prima facie applicable. Courts had to consider all the circumstances of a case, and, without any preconceived view about the applicability of one or other legal system, select the appropriate law on the basis of its inquiry.

[c] SALC, Sept 1999: Report on Conflicts of law: P.22: ‘1.58. The Constitution now provides an entitlement for invoking customary law in legal suits. Because ss 30 and 31 specifically guarantee an individual and a group’s right to pursue a culture of choice, it could be argued that application of customary law has become a constitutional right. Previously, the state had assumed complete discretion in deciding whether and to what extent customary law should be recognized, an attitude typical of colonial thinking, for Africans were subject to whatever policies the conquering state chose to impose on them. Now, however, the state has a duty to allow people to participate in the culture they choose, implicit in this duty is a responsibility to uphold the institutions on which that culture is based.’

[d] In Smit NO and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others (10237/2009) [2009] ZAKZPHC 75 (4 December 2009) Judge Nic van Reyden of the Kwa-Zulu Natal High Court, ruled in favour of the revived Zulu cultural practice of barehanded killing of a bull at the Ukweshwama festival, satisfied with the evidence of cultural expert Professor Jabulani Mapalala , who said that the animal’s death was quick, unpainful and that no blood was shed. (Others disagreed : Mapalala’s expert witness testimony contradicts Chief Mlaba (not submitted to the court), as quoted in an ANC newsletter of December 1995, that: “We must use our bare hands, It’s cruelty, we agree, but it’s our culture. We cannot change our culture.” ).

[e] In Ex Parte Minister of Native Affairs in re: Yako v Beyi 1948 (1) SA 388 (A) Schreiner J.A. said lifestyle is a choice of law factor. “Aside from an express choice of laws all connecting factors with conflict of personal laws are designed to determine, in an objective manner, the cultural orientation of the parties. Because the laws involved are conceived in terms of culture …. the connecting factors must be conceived in like terms. The most direct access to a person’s cultural leanings would clearly be his or her lifestyle.”

[f] In Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, Communication No. R.6/24 (29 December 1977), U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40) at 166 (1981), Lovelace petitioned the United Nations Human Rights Committee pursuant to the Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on December 29, 1977. On July 30, 1981 the United Nations Human Rights Committee reached its decision on the communication which ‘inter alia’ found Canada to be in breach of Article 27, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the right of minority members to practice their culture.

» » » » [Petition to Prof. Denis Alland (PDF)]