Application to the Tribunal And as replacement to 2015.010.21 Application UZA with ITNJ General Jurisdiction: Republic of South Africa Court of origin (where appropriate): Constitutional Court of South Africa; Appeal number (where appropriate): Date of filing: 23rd of October 2015 ITNJ File No: 2015.01 - UZA Constitutional Court Case Number: CCT 200/15 Agents Applicant’s agents: court of record: representative real action of we, the people; Unified Common-law Grand Jury of Southern Africa, hereinafter UZA or uza Respondent’s agents: The National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa 1. Details of the applicant Applicant’s full name: Unified Common Law Grand Jury of Southern Africa Original status: Claimant Defendant Intervener ITNJ Form 1 – Application to the Tribunal Page 1 of 21 Petitioner Respondent Agent (if applicable) Name: administrator: brother-thomas-graham:carlsson-rudman prosecutor : miss t bailiwick : jan:lohfeldt Address: Telephone: skype: commonlawsa1 c/o Unified Grand Jury ZA Fax no: ------- P.O. Box 166 DX no: ------- Laezonia Ref: Pretoria Concourt: CCT: 200/15 South Africa, ZA ITNJ: 15.10.23 UZA: 2013/06/S11 Postcode: n/a (jurisdiction) Email: [email protected] and [email protected] and [email protected] How would you prefer us to communicate with you? Via email thank you; Counsel (if applicable) Name: miss t (attorney at law) attorney in fact in this case Address: s/a/a Telephone no: Fax no: Postcode: DX no: Ref: Email: [email protected] How would you prefer us to communicate with you? Email ITNJ Form 1 – Application to the Tribunal Page 2 of 21 2. Nature of the application This applicant applies for: Permission to intervene Expedited hearing 3. Grounds on which application is made On what grounds are you making this application? We, the people on the Land of Southern Africa where the law of the case is natural law and by original jurisdiction living customary law, common-law, ancient maxims and precedents hereby declare and solemnly affirm under the pains and penalty of perjury the following to be our trueth: Introduction: We say that we are a lawful superior original jurisdiction people’s court of record on the land and we are now taking representative administrative real action on behalf of thousands of people who have given us verbal special power-of-attorney-in-fact to represent them in this matter, with various complaints, of which the root of all complaints is briefly outlined herein; We say that according to oral African custom a verbal agreement is binding; however, we are also in the process of declaring it formally in document form should the ITNJ accept our dispute and or require the necessary special power of attorney signed, sealed and affirmed; and, to grant us time up until the date required as increasing numbers of people are signing up, daily; Whereas in our 5 yearlong in-depth legal investigation which is well-documented at www.giftoftruth.wordpress.com and read by over 50 000 people, most being thankful for the education, we have come to the realization that the land of Southern Africa is still deemed to be under Sovereign rule of HM THE QUEEN as the highest ranking Justices of the COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA hold letters patent to the CROWN; ITNJ Form 1 – Application to the Tribunal Page 3 of 21 We aver that this is confirmed by the fact that all LEGALESE such as BAR, BARRISTER, ESQUIRE, HIGH, LORD, PARLIAMENT, SUPREME, etc. are all terms from ADMIRALTY COURTS which are also MILITARY COURTS of a MILITARY STATE which Black’s Law 4th defines as: “The soldiery of the kingdom of Great Britain.” We aver that our this fact is further confirmed in this regard by the enactment of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1916 and the accompanying Insolvency Act, 1916 and Appropriation Act, 1920 ; and, as a result we have been declared bankrupt and a conquered peoples; We say that a Republic was formed to control the states under Sovereign CROWN rule as evidenced in Crown Liabilities Act, 1910 and Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961; We aver that since 1994 we are still under “administration” as COURTS OF SOUTH AFRICA are described above; Federal RSA: It seems that since 1994 another “arm” to the “EMPIRE” was added in the form of “federal elements” and that we have been what can only be described as ‘assimilated’ by a Federal government as ‘The Washington University Manual of International Legal Citation’ states “…federal elements…” and as the following definition from Black’s Law 4th Edition, 1968 defines as: FEDERAL. American Law. Belonging to the general government or union of the states. Founded on or organized under the constitution or laws of the United States. The United States has been generally styled, in American political and judicial writings, a "federal government." The term has not been imposed by any specific constitutional authority, but only expresses the general sense and opinion upon the nature of the form of government. In recent years, there is observable a disposition to employ the term "national" in speaking of the government of the Union. Neither word settles anything as to the nature or powers of the government. "Federal" is somewhat more appropriate if the government is considered a union of the states; "national" is preferable if the view is adopted that the state governments and the Union are two distinct systems, each established by the people directly, one for local and the other for national purposes. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588; Abbott; Mills, Representative Government 301; Freeman, Fed. Gov't. EMPEROR. The title of the sovereign ruler of an empire. This designation was adopted by the rulers of the Roman world after the decay of the republic, and was assumed by those who claimed to be their successors in the "Holy Roman Empire," as also by Napoleon. "The sovereigns of Japan and Morocco are often, though with little propriety, called emperors." 10 Encyc. Amer. (1929), p. 300. In western speech the former sovereigns of Turkey and China were called emperors. Cent. Diet. The title "emperor" seems to denote a power and dignity superior to that of a "king." It appears to be the appropriate style of the executive head of a federal government, constructed on the monarchial principle, and comprising in its organization several distinct kingdoms or other quasi sovereign states; as was the case with the German empire from ITNJ Form 1 – Application to the Tribunal Page 4 of 21 1871 to 1918. "The proper meaning of emperor is the chief of a confederation of states of which kings are members." Cent. Dict., quoting Encyc. Brit. "In general, an emperor is the holder of a sovereignty extending over conquered or confederated peoples, a king is ruler of a single people. Thus the 'King of England' is 'Emperor of India.' " Webster's New Int. Dict. Before the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian empire in November, 1918, its monarch was known as the Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary. Whereas we now realize that we are still a ‘conquered people’s’ through the employment of semantic deceit by which method we were falsely led to believe the contrary; We say that even our Judges were deceived as evidenced by the following extract from THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO JUST ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IN THE DEMOCRATIC SOUTH AFRICA A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY of RHODES UNIVERSITY by CLIVE PLASKET (Now Dr Plasket and Justice of HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA): “The postscript to the interim Constitution made this clear when it said that this Constitution provided a ‘historic bridge between the past of a deeply divided society characterised by strife, conflict, untold suffering and injustice, and a future founded on the recognition of human rights, democracy and peaceful co-existence and development opportunities for all South Africans, irrespective of colour, race, class, belief or sex’. The preamble of the final Constitution speaks of it healing the ‘divisions of the past’, establishing a society ‘based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental rights’ and laying ‘the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law’.” [emphasis added] We say that on every occasion that we ask people: “Is the current system of governance based on the will of the people?” and thus far, out of over 20 000 people we have asked have answered a resounding “NO!” DEMOCRACY: Whereas we wish for ITNJ to assist and give guidance on certain key definitions as there is confusion as to what we have been assuming words to mean and what the adopted definition is; for example, ‘Democracy’ has many definitions which could mean POLITICAL DEMOCRACY which, too is a HIERARCHY as the CITIZEN is subject to the SOVEREIGN STATE, both legal fictions; and, as opposed to a pure democracy wherein the people are sovereign and as peers are subject to no-one and only grant the state limited powers; even the definition of ‘human’ is questionable and could mean something other than ‘people’. ITNJ Form 1 – Application to the Tribunal Page 5 of 21 We say that it is mainly because of the use of semantic deceit by Officials that we, the people can now safely say that the current system is increasingly notorious for not being based on the will of the people and as a result no further case evidence is required; Dr. Plasket continues: ABSTRACT “For most of its existence South African administrative law has been shaped by the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty – the heart of the constitutional order from 1910 to 1994 – and a racist political system that favoured the white minority at the expense of the black majority.