Note to Readers

Please Note: The editor of Norway Corruption blog is a member of the Ecology of Peace culture.

Summary of Ecology of Peace Problem Solving: The problems of poverty, unemployment, war, crime, violence, food shortages, food price increases, inflation, police brutality, political instability, loss of civil rights, vanishing species, garbage and pollution, urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, racism, sexism, Nazism, Islamism, feminism, Zionism etc; are the ecological overshoot consequences of humans living in accordance to a Masonic War is Peace international law social contract that provides humans the ‘right to breed and consume’ with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits.

Ecology of Peace factual reality: 1. Earth is not flat; 2. Resources are finite; 3. When humans breed or consume above ecological carrying capacity limits, it results in resource conflict; 4. If individuals, families, tribes, races, religions, and/or nations want to reduce class, racial and/or religious local, national and international resource war conflict; they should cooperate to implement an Ecology of Peace international law social contract that restricts all the worlds citizens to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; to sustainably protect and conserve natural resources.

EoP v WiP NWO negotiations are documented at MILED Clerk Notice.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

PFU: Process News w. Views 'Breivik Guilty' Complaint as Public Interest Judicial Reporting Important matter



PFU: Process News w. Views Complaint as Public Interest Judicial Reporting Important matter

HOWEVER: Irrespective of whether Mr. Breivik himself believes in his guilt, and is involved in a massive Bullshit the Public Relations Image Management Campaign; EVERY ACCUSED -- EVEN THOSE WHO PLEAD GUILTY, OR CONSIDER THEMSELVES GUILTY -- SHOULD ONLY BE REPORTED ON, AS 'GUILTY'; ONCE A COURT OF LAW HAS MADE A 'FINDING OF GUILT'.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 15 August 2012



Request to PFU The Norwegian Press Complaints Commission: Kjell Nyhuus, Commission secretary:

I am unable - so far - to get a clear answer from Lippestad Attorneys. My current working hypothesis conclusion (until provided with additional information) is as follows:

1. Mr. Lippestad stated in court proceedings that Breivik's claim of innocence and necessity was purely a formality: i.e. my interpretation: Breivik does not subjectively believe his claims of (Anti-Islamicization) necessity; 22/07 Attacks and the trial were all just propaganda bullshit campaign.

2. Mr. Breivik has never contradicted Mr. Lippestad's statements that Breivik's 'Necessity' claim is simply a formality; or instructed Mr. Lippestad to withdraw his statements to the court; however Mr. Breivik's testimony, repeatedly focussed on his claim of necessity as the source for his innocence.

3. So, it is unclear: If Mr. Breivik sincerely believes his claims of innocence and necessity: (a) Why has he not instructed Lippestad to retract his statement; (b) If Lippestad refuses: placed the dispute with his attorney before the court and ask for new counsel; or (c) Lippestad is telling the truth; and Breivik really doesn’t subjectively believe in his necessity claim towards innocence, he is simply engaging in a bullshit the public relations propaganda campaign

HOWEVER: Irrespective of whether Mr. Breivik himself believes in his guilt, and is involved in a massive Bullshit the Public Relations Image Management Campaign; EVERY ACCUSED -- EVEN THOSE WHO PLEAD GUILTY, OR CONSIDER THEMSELVES GUILTY -- SHOULD ONLY BE REPORTED ON, AS 'GUILTY'; ONCE A COURT OF LAW HAS MADE A 'FINDING OF GUILT'.

So, whether Mr. Breivik consents to my complaint, or not; I request information as to the procedure to process this complaint, in the absence of Mr. Brievik's consent; either by

(A) presentation to the committee, that special circumstances of judicial ethics (factual legal findings of guilt, cannot be made by an accused, their lawyer, or any journalist, or editor; only an impartial court of law; and any reporter/editor who reports an accused to have been found guilty (irrespective if they pled guilty or not) is MISSTATING LEGAL FACTS) warrant that the complaint be treated without Breivik's consent; Or

(B) An appeal to the Press Association's Secretary General, on his own initiative to request the matter be processed, as it is -- I imagine -- a matter of great fundamental public interest, that journalists not go around accusing people of 'findings of guilt' without a proper court of law having made such a legal finding of guilt.

Below is a copy of the correspondence with Lippestad Attorney's; and excerpts of correspondence sent to Mr. Breivik himself, on the matter .........



PFU: Process News w. Views Complaint as Public Interest Judicial Reporting Important matter


From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 12:06 PM
To: 'Kjell Nyhuus'; 'PFU: GenSec: Per Edgar Kokkvold'
Cc: 'Ingrid Nergården Jortveit'; 'Trude Hansen'; 'PFU: Sec: Monica Andersen'; 'Norway News in English: Nina Berglund'; Crt: Lippestad: Tord Jordet
Subject: RE: PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'

The Norwegian Press Complaints Commission
Kjell Nyhuus
Commission secretary
Postboks 46 Sentrum
0107 Oslo

CC: News with Views & Lippestad Attorneys

Mr. Nyhuus,

RE: PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'

I am unable - so far - to get a clear answer from Lippestad Attorneys. My current working hypothesis conclusion (until provided with additional information) is as follows:

1. Mr. Lippestad stated in court proceedings that Breivik's claim of innocence and necessity was purely a formality: i.e. my interpretation: Breivik does not subjectively believe his claims of (Anti-Islamicization) necessity; 22/07 Attacks and the trial were all just propaganda bullshit campaign.

2. Mr. Breivik has never contradicted Mr. Lippestad's statements that Breivik's 'Necessity' claim is simply a formality; or instructed Mr. Lippestad to withdraw his statements to the court; however Mr. Breivik's testimony, repeatedly focussed on his claim of necessity as the source for his innocence.

3. So, it is unclear: If Mr. Breivik sincerely believes his claims of innocence and necessity: (a) Why has he not instructed Lippestad to retract his statement; (b) If Lippestad refuses: placed the dispute with his attorney before the court and ask for new counsel; or (c) Lippestad is telling the truth; and Breivik really doesn’t subjectively believe in his necessity claim towards innocence, he is simply engaging in a bullshit the public relations propaganda campaign

HOWEVER: Irrespective of whether Mr. Breivik himself believes in his guilt, and is involved in a massive Bullshit the Public Relations Image Management Campaign; EVERY ACCUSED -- EVEN THOSE WHO PLEAD GUILTY, OR CONSIDER THEMSELVES GUILTY -- SHOULD ONLY BE REPORTED ON, AS 'GUILTY'; ONCE A COURT OF LAW HAS MADE A 'FINDING OF GUILT'.

So, whether Mr. Breivik consents to my complaint, or not; I request information as to the procedure to process this complaint, in the absence of Mr. Brievik's consent; either by

(A) presentation to the committee, that special circumstances of judicial ethics (factual legal findings of guilt, cannot be made by an accused, their lawyer, or any journalist, or editor; only an impartial court of law; and any reporter/editor who reports an accused to have been found guilty (irrespective if they pled guilty or not) is MISSTATING LEGAL FACTS) warrant that the complaint be treated without Breivik's consent.

Or

(B) An appeal to the Press Association's Secretary General, on his own initiative to request the matter be processed, as it is -- I imagine -- a matter of great fundamental public interest, that journalists not go around accusing people of 'findings of guilt' without a proper court of law having made such a legal finding of guilt.

#########################################################################

Below is a copy of the correspondence with Lippestad Attorney's; and excerpts of correspondence sent to Mr. Breivik himself, on the matter; all of it is documented at the PFU: Press Complaints Commission: News with Views page: http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/press-complaints-comm-pfu.html

(full transcript of correspondence available at link)

#########################################################################

10 Aug 2012: Lippestad Attorneys: Req. Breivik Consent:

Request to Lippestad Attorneys: Attorney Tord Jordet:


The PFU appear to be refusing to process my complaint without Mr. Breivik's consent. Unfuckingbelievable!!!

1. Has Mr. Breivik received the request for consent?

2. If so, when does he intend responding?

===================

13 Aug: 2012: Lippestad Attorney: Breivik Consent & Breivik 'Guilt/Innocence & Necessity' Request to Lippestad for Clarity re: Breivik 'Innocence/Guilt' Issues:

1. Why did Defence Counsel not demand Prosecutor Engh and Holden provide reasons for their refusal to address Breivik’s claim of necessity?

2. Is it common for Norwegian Prosecutors to refuse to provide the court with the Prosecutor’s Office assessment of an accused’s evidence for their claim of necessity?

3. In Norwegian Law upon which party does the Onus of Proof lie in a claim of necessity?

4. Is there some political correct conformity conspiracy between Defence Counsel and Prosecution to ignore Breivik’s claims of necessity?

5. Why did your Defence of Breivik state that the only issues before the court – as the media have been reporting and you said to the court – are the sane/safety issue?

6. How exactly can the only issue before the court be the ‘sane/safety’; since when is the ‘guilt/innocence’ issue irrelevant in a political criminal trial?

7. If Lippestad attorney’s are denying the court to be required to seriously examine the necessity evidence for Breivik’s guilt or innocence; upon what grounds and authority did Lippestad Attorney’s find Breivik to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

8. Or is it a matter of first ascertaining Breivik’s sanity; and then if, or when Breivik is finally deemed sane, does he then get a new trial with a focus on ‘guilty/innocence’ issue; to determine his innocence or guilt, based upon the evidence for and against his necessity defence?

9. If not, when exactly is Breivik entitled to an impartial trial where the issue before the court is Breivik’s ‘guilt/innocence’ and Prosecutors and Defence Counsel are required to seriously legally examine the evidence for and against his Necessity Defence?

===================

Response from Attorney Tord Jordet:

"I have sent him your e-mail and document, and asked him to decide what to do with PFU. He receives many letters, and the prison have to read trough every letter before he receives it, so there is a delay before they give the letters to him. Therefore I would not expect an answer before next week at first."

===================

Response to Attorney Tord Jordet:

I was under the impression that Ms. Baera visited Breivik once a week; read it in somewhere in a newspaper last week. So I thought it would be easy for her to ask him if he consents or not. Probably an erroneous google translation! ;-)

However my amazement is about the PFU’s policy of approving deception and lies, if the target of such lies consents to the deception of the public. They don’t even pretend to have a commitment to truth and factual reporting, irrespective of whether the target of such lies consents or not. That is the source of my ‘un****ingbelievable’ comment.

Even if Mr. Breivik is batshit delusional and intended to plead guilty, until a Judge had ruled that he actually is guilty (that there were no circumstances of necessity or self defence in his act, whether he pleads to necessity or self defence is irrelevant; it’s a requirement for a judge to make sure that someone who pleads guilty had no such circumstances); it is a LIE to publish that such a person has been found ‘GUILTY’. It is irrelevant if it is Breivik or Tom Thumb; for a newspaper to publish that someone has been found GUILTY of a crime, in the absence of a impartial court making such a ruling; SHOULD BE A CRIME IN ITSELF.

Its massive public deception. So that is the source of my disgust… not sure what I am gonna do about it yet; I am still in shock, they can be so blaze about their endorsement of deception! I cannot fucking stand liars… I have more respect for people who tell the truth, even if I vehemently disagree with their truth, even if I find their truth despicable.. than I have for two faced hypocrites who practice public relations bullshit deception!

Sorry for the misunderstanding, if so.

===================

Response from Attorney Tord Jordet:

"Yes you are right, he receives visits weekly, and he can call us as often as he wants. I have informed him by phone that you have written a formal complaint to the PFU, and I told him that I would send the letter to him. Therefore I will have to wait for him to read your letter before I can give you a reply.

In general I don`t believe he would engage himself in a case against the press at this time. He was prepared for character assassination, and have been aware that the press will be out to get him. His views of most journalists indicates that he does not expect them to write truthfully and unbiased. Therefore I do not believe him to be affected by this article, and I don`t expect that he wants to spend time and energy fighting this journalist in PFU. He is most likely to approve certain cases against the press, but I don't think he will want to intervene in any.

As you probably know he is planning to write several books, and I believe that it is more likely that he will share his views on the media in a book."

===================

Response to Attorney Tord Jordet:

The complaint is not about Breivik engaging himself against the press at this time. This is about the PUBLIC BEING LIED TO about a matter of an accused being accused of being guilty, without having had a trial to determine such guilt.

I don’t discriminate against any accused; I don’t give a fuck who the person is.. whether they are accused of mass murder or peadophilia or whatever the fuck; NOBODY SHOULD BE ACCUSED OF BEING GUILTY IN A PUBLIC NEWSPAPER, IN THE ABSENCE OF A FREE AND FAIR TRIAL AND JUDICIAL FINDING OF GUILT.

If Norway and Norwegian cultural press give a fuck about the truth…then it should be totally and utterly irrelevant whether an accused consents or not, to whether a newspaper can accuse someone of being ‘guilty’ of any particular crime, without such defendant having been found guilty in a court of law, and without such defendant having pled guilty.

I have no clue where you got the impression that Breivik is being asked to intervene in the case. I did not ask for his intervention; the PFU demanded his consent.

===================

Copy of Correspondence to Breivik, sent to Lippestad Attorneys:

Please take notice of correspondence sent to Mr. Breivik, honourable transparency, copied to your offices, in reference to:

------------

Request Clarification: RE: Habeus Mentem, Amicus Curiae and Review Applications Filed:

I am not quite clear. You acknowledge receipt of the legal applications I filed in the Norway v. Breivik matter, but refer to them as ‘my letter and email compaigns’? Do you dispute their contents as being unworthy of being considered legal applications; and if so, could you clarify how and why you do so? Or why do you refer to these legal applications as ‘letters and emails’.

In terms of my definition of ‘honour’; to be ‘honourable’ is to legally acknowledge the application by responding to the issues raised therein, as part of court procedure.

If you do not dispute them as legal applications: Could you please clarify what exactly your instructions were to your Attorneys in response to the applications I filed in Oslo District Court: Judge Nina Opsahl (Habeus Mentem: Right to Legal Sanity) and Judge Wenche (Amicus Curiae: Friend of the Court) and the Norwegian Supreme Court: Review and Declaratory Order.


Request Clarification: What were your instructions to your attorney’s regarding ‘Guilt/Innocence: Necessity’

Mr. Lippestad stated in court proceedings that your claim of innocence and necessity was purely a formality: i.e. my interpretation: you did not subjectively believe your claims of necessity; its all just propaganda bullshit.

Your testimony, on the other hand, repeatedly focussed on your claim of necessity as the source for your innocence.

So, I am confused: If you sincerely believe your claims of innocence and necessity:

* At the very least: Why have you not instructed Mr. Lippestad to retract his statements that contradict yours?

* If he refuses: Why have you not publicly stated your lawyers refusal to follow your instructions and placed the dispute transparently before the court, as a matter of court record?

* Or, is Lippestad telling the truth; and you really don’t subjectively believe in your necessity claim towards innocence, you are simply engaging in a bullshit the public relations propaganda?

See Annex F: Letter to Mr. Lippestad: Request for Clarification regarding Defence Counsel’s focus on ‘sane/safety’ issue, while seemingly ignoring the ‘innocence/guilt’ issue, thereby denying Breivik’s right to Impartial trial to enquire into the evidence for and against his Necessity Defence.

----------------

All correspondence to, and from, Mr. Breivik is publicly available for reading, and download, at:

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/breivik-letters.html

############################ END #####################################

Respectfully Submitted

Lara Johnstone

Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com

» » » » [Read Further]

No comments:

FLEUR-DE-LIS HUMINT :: F(x) Population Growth x F(x) Declining Resources = F(x) Resource Wars

KaffirLilyRiddle: F(x)population x F(x)consumption = END:CIV
Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement (13:10)
Unified Quest is the Army Chief of Staff's future study plan designed to examine issues critical to current and future force development... - as the world population grows, increased global competition for affordable finite resources, notably energy and rare earth materials, could fuel regional conflict. - water is the new oil. scarcity will confront regions at an accelerated pace in this decade.
US Army: Population vs. Resource Scarcity Study Plan
Human Farming Management: Fake Left v. Right (02:09)
ARMY STRATEGY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: Office of Dep. Asst. of the Army Environment, Safety and Occupational Health: Richard Murphy, Asst for Sustainability, 24 October 2006
2006: US Army Strategy for Environment
CIA & Pentagon: Overpopulation & Resource Wars [01] [02]
Peak NNR: Scarcity: Humanity’s Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity’s Consequences, by Chris Clugston
Peak Non-Renewable Resources = END:CIV Scarcity Future
Race 2 Save Planet :: END:CIV Resist of Die (01:42) [Full]