Breivik Judgement Review filed with Norway Supreme Court; to Set Aside Necessity & Conviction Rulings

Breivik Judgement Review filed with Norway Supreme Court; to Set Aside Necessity & Conviction Rulings

Application for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement Ruling; to Set Aside the Judgements (1) ‘Necessity (Nodrett) Ruling’ and (2) Defendant’s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminist vs. Breivik | 27 August 2012

Application submitted to Norway Supreme Court for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement Ruling; to Set Aside the Judgements (1) ‘Necessity (Nodrett) Ruling’ and (2) Defendant’s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. [Notice to Respondents]

Respondents:
First: OSLO DISTRICT COURT
Second: KINGDOM OF NORWAY (Prosecution)
Third: ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK
Fourth: VICTIMS FAMILIES

Excerpts from Notice of Motion.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the applicant intends to apply for leave to review against parts of the judgement by Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Fagdommer: Arne Lyng; Meddommere: Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff, delivered on 24 August 2012 (herein after referred to as the “Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement”).

{I} REVIEW ORDERS REQUESTED:

The following ‘Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement’ decisions are reviewed:

[A.1] Set Aside the Judgements ‘Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling’ (pg.67):

6.2 De sakkyndiges arbeid og konklusjoner [..] Tiltalte har anført at han må frifinnes på grunn av nødrett fordi han gjennomførte «preventive» angrep for å nå sine politiske mål, slik disse er redegjort for ovenfor i pkt. 3.1. Til denne anførselen vil retten kort bemerke at verken straffelovens bestemmelser om nødrett eller internasjonale menneskerettigheter, som tiltalte også påberoper seg, tillater drap av statsansatte, politisk engasjerte ungdommer eller andre for å fremme ekstreme politiske målsettinger. Anførselen kan åpenbart ikke føre frem.

6.2 The committee's work and conclusions [..] The defendant has argued that he should be acquitted because of necessity because he performed "preventive" attack to achieve their political goals, as they are described above in section 3.1. To this argument, the court will briefly note that neither the criminal law provisions on necessity or international human rights, which defendant also claims, allows the killing of government, politically active young people or others to promote extreme political objectives. Argument can obviously did not succeed.

[A.2] Set Aside Defendant’s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry.

The finding of guilt, in the absence of full Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Conclusions renders the Guilt Finding Inadequate and plausibly requires submittal of Further Evidence.


[A.3] If Defendant refuses to cooperate with Further Evidence proceedings; an order to change his plea to ‘guilty’; and/or ‘Non-Precedent’ Setting Declaratory Order

In the event that the Accused declines to cooperate with the court to subpoena the relevant ‘Further Evidence’ experts the Accused based their objective and subjective necessity conclusions upon; to issue (a) an order that the Accused plea be changed to ‘guilty’, since clearly the Defendant does not subjectively believe his ‘Necessity’ defence, if he refuses to uphold his alleged subjective belief in his ‘necessity motivated criminal act’ for the court to objectively and subjectively test his necessity defence evidence; and/or (b) a declaratory order that the Defendant’s apathetic failure to uphold his demand that the court objectively and subjectively test his necessity defence evidence, not be set as a precedent for other political activists to be denied their necessity rights for a court to objectively and subjectively test their evidence.


[A.4] If Failure of Justice Irregularity Does not Influence Conviction and/or Sentence Verdict; a ‘Non-Precedent Setting’ Declaratory Order

If the failure of Justice Irregularity of the court to provide the Defendant with an impartial objective and subjective test of his necessity defence, and if the Defendants evidence of guilt is so conclusive or overwhelming that the court can with reasonable certainty say that, without the irregularity or defect, the same decision would have inevitably been reached; to issue a Declaratory Order that the denial of an objective and subjective test of the Defendant’s necessity defence in this matter; should not set a precedent for other political activists or common law citizens who plead to necessity, to be denied an impartial objective and subjective test of the evidence for and against their necessity defence.


[B] Set Aside the Judgements Failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges, as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5) principles, and general ECHR public accountability Transparency (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom) principles.

Complaint against Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media). (PDF)


[C] The respondents who oppose this application are ordered jointly and severally to pay their own costs in terms of this application.


{II} GROUNDS FOR REVIEW:

The application for review is based on the grounds of (A) Irregularities & Illegalities in the Proceedings before the Oslo District Court: in terms of (1) A Failure of Justice and Failure of a True and Correct Interpretation of the Facts; (2) Judicially Un-Investigated Facts; (3) Failure of Application of Mind and (4) Rejection of Admissible or Competent Evidence: (i) Prosecutor & Judges failure to examine objective and subjective necessity test; and (ii) Courts denial of due process to applicants Habeus Mentem and Amicus Curiae applications.

[A.1.a] Necessity Judgement fails to provide any necessity criminal provisions that prohibit killing of Government Officials in case of Necessity.

Judgement provides no details of any Norwegian or International specific necessity criminal provision which specifically prohibits the killing of government or politically active young people, in the event of objective and subjective reasonably determined necessity.


[A.1.b] Necessity Judgement Ignores that Criminal Necessity provisions do not prohibit the killing of Government Officials in case of objective and subjective Necessity.

Applicant is unaware of any International or Norwegian specific necessity criminal provision which specifically prohibits the killing of government or politically active young people, in the event of objective and subjective reasonably determined necessity.


[A.1.c] Necessity Judgement’s Erroneous interpretation of Necessity related criminal law provisions and international necessity related human rights law.

Necessity criminal provisions do not specifically allow or disallow the killing of government or politically active young people. Necessity criminal provisions provide for an objective and subjective test that examines each alleged criminal act to objectively and subjectively determine whether necessity existed within the particular criminal act’s relevant circumstances.


[A.1.d] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Failure to conduct required Objective and Subjective Tests for Defendant’s Necessity Defence:

The court, prosecution and defence counsel failed to conduct the required subjective and objective tests [LE-2012-76983 Eidsivating Appeal – Judgment of 29 May 2012 ] to determine (I) objectively whether the defendant’s claims – simplistically rephrased as - ‘Titanic Europe is on a demographic/immigration collision course with Islam Iceberg’; and (II) secondly whether the defendant subjectively perceived the Titanic Europe/Islam Iceberg circumstances this way.

If Defendant subjectively views Europe metaphorically as ‘Titanic Europe’ then an objective test by means of relevant expert witness testimony and vigorous cross examination of such experts, would need to determine:

(a) Is Islam an Iceberg or a mirage/illusion on the horizon?

(b) If an iceberg: Is Titanic Europe unsinkable or an icebreaker?

(c) If not: how large, how far, how deep is Islam Iceberg and if moving, how fast, in what direction?

(d) What is the distance between Titanic Europe and Islam Iceberg and at what speeds are they moving towards impending collision?

(e) Is collision inevitable based on current speed, current and course; or is there still time for altering course and speed; and if so, how much time, before collision is inevitable?

(f) Subjective Reasonableness Test: If an ‘African nationalist’ passenger on Titanic Africa’s subjective reality is that the collision of Titanic Africa’s 770 million passengers with the Greedy Colonial Europe Iceberg is inevitable in the absence of drastic alteration of course and speed within ‘for example: 10 000 minutes’; but Titanic Africa’s ‘Media PR brainwashed Captain’ captain and crew all mistakenly believe Titanic Africa is an unsinkable icebreaker and the Colonial Europe Iceberg is a tall ship on the horizon; and the only message the ‘Media PR brainwashed Captain’ listens to is ‘If it Bleads, it Leads’ dead bodies; would an objectively reasonable military minded European / Arab / Latin American / nationalist individual advise the African nationalist passenger to (i) sacrifice 77 Colonial Europe passengers to awaken 770 million Titanic African passengers to the urgency of demanding the captain immediately drastically alter course and speed before the point of imminent collision is reached, or (ii) focus their energy on their own liferaft and make peace with the impending death of Titanic Africa’s ignorant and unprepared 770 million?


[A.1.e] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Inadequate

It is clear that the Court's statement of reasons does not show the results of the courts objective and subjective enquiry into the Defendant’s claim of necessity. Thus, it is also clear that the Court's statement of reasons, are inadequate.


[A.1.f] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Clarification Upon which party the Onus of Proof lies in a Case of Necessity; and how or why their evidence was insufficient renders the Judgements Conclusions inadequate.

The Judgement fails to disclose Norwegian law’s Onus of Proof requirements in a case of necessity: i.e. upon which party – Defendant or State - does the Onus of Proof lie in case of Necessity? In South Africa, the proof in a defense of necessity, ruling out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity, lies on the State. In the absence of the State ruling out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity, the accused claim of necessity stands.


[A.1.g] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Discriminatory Precedent

The Court's statement of reasons does not show the results of the courts objective and subjective enquiry into the Defendant’s claim of necessity. Thus, it is also clear that the Court's statement of reasons, are not only inadequate, but if not corrected, would set a bad precedent, encouraging other courts to deny necessity defendants their rights to an objective and subjective test of their necessity defence.


[A.1.h] Necessity Judgements ‘Extreme Political Objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test

For example: Subjectively speaking as a ‘European Indigenous Militant Nationalist’: Saving the lives of 770 million of your fellow ‘European state’ citizens is not an ‘extreme political objective’; but a ‘human rights objective’.

Whereas subjectively speaking as an honourable ‘End Civilisation Linkolian-Primitivist EcoFeminist’: Informing 770 million European industrial civilisation human parasites destroying the planets ecological habitat of Titanic Europe’s impending collision with the Peak Oil and NNR Iceberg could be a ‘Decisive Ecological Warfare Wild Law objective’.

Put differently: In the absence of a broader ecological perspective, a reasonable objective assessment of the left vs. right wing parasite leeching political breeding and resource war blame game would conclude that one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist; similarly one man’s ‘extreme political objective’ can be another man’s ‘human rights objective’.


[A.1.i] Necessity Judgements ‘Extreme Political Objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test; and is a Masculine (Reason and Logic) Insecurity Human Farming Kaffir Legislation’ Social Trap. Put simply: a Left vs. Right Wing Blame Game Parasite Leeching Polarization – not a Matriarchal Ecological and Psychological Integrity Root Cause Problem Solving – conclusion.

The Myth that Economic and Political Solutions Can Solve Any Problem

From a broader ecological perspective, all human economics and politics are irrelevant.

A Matriarchal Radical Problem Solving Accountability Enquiry would have examined both the underlying ecological reality environment, and the underlying psychological integrity environment of the dispute between the defendant and the victims.

A healthy ecological environment, with due regard for carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights; similarly a psychological integrity environment of philosophical radical transparency courageous truth searching radical honesty relationships that inforlve sincere forgiveness is a sine qua non for healthy, transparent relationships that result in the co-creation of a code of conduct that enables non-violent honest sincere resolutions to disagreements.

A sustainable democracy or republic would only allow citizens who live below the nations carrying capacity in terms of procreation and consumption, the licence to vote. Any citizen whose consumption and/or procreation footprint is above the nations carrying capacity footprint is effectively robbing future generations of the nations resources that should be conserved and preserved for their future. We don’t give robbers the code to the nations bank safes; so why do we give citizen ecological rapists and robbers a licence to vote and bribe politicians to rob future generations resources?

The Kaffir Matrix Court system is founded on ‘Kaffir Legislation’: Inalienable Right to Breed and Vote: Kaffir Law/Legislation provides citizens with the Inalienable ‘Right to Breed’ and ‘Right to Vote’, but demands that Citizens need a Licence to Own a Gun, a Licence to Drive a Car, a Licence to Practice Law, a television licence, a credit licence, a licence to earn a living, a university exemption licence, a licence to fish, a licence to hunt, a liquor licence, a business licence, a marriage licence.

The Masculine Insecurity Human Farming Kaffir Legal Matrix avoid requiring voting and breeding licences; because (A) their endorsement of the Inalienable Right to Vote, or Universal Suffrage for the Ignorant is their road to centralisation of power and tyranny ; and (B) their endorsement of the Inalienable Right to Breed, is their endorsement of the Economic and Military Cannon Fodder - Iron Mountain ‘War is a Racket - Tragedy of the Commons use of women as human-factory-farming-cannon-fodder-brood-sows for their Kaffir Matrix profit from the Human Farming Tragedy of the Commons breeding war resource wars .


[B] Judgement’s Transparency Failure violates Aarhus Convention principles and public accountability impartiality principles.


» » » » [27 Aug: Review Breivik Judgement][Respondents Notice][(PDF)]