tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2359920416776140292024-02-21T00:52:15.924-08:00Norway CorruptionAndrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-34325848186301356292013-02-05T06:34:00.001-08:002013-02-05T06:35:21.358-08:00Parl Ombud Complaint: Language Discrimination by Supervisory Committee for Judges<div align="justify"><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Parl Ombud Complaint: Language Discrimination by Supv Comm for Judges</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Language Discrimination and Lack of Clear Principles by Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges Norwegian Language Rulings, in response to English Language complaints in Case 12-071: Judge Nina Opsahl, 12-072: Judge Wenche Arntzen, 12-073: Judge Tore Schei.</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">Andrea Muhrrteyn | Ecofeminist v. Breivik | 09 January 2013</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuc1tFQhdqoKaqUi7mAY_TAeH2A84SFpxbdEI1Fcz2B0Ku9xt8bSUFuWe8C2aCGD1MR8zCtg8m5M9uwsCRT8BjT-K9PZRgHBh_45bi_YSNmrDd9SCIhVuRmdKbT6BEbrNz08T3JaPe8oA/s1600/SC4J_Opsahl-Arntzen-Schei.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuc1tFQhdqoKaqUi7mAY_TAeH2A84SFpxbdEI1Fcz2B0Ku9xt8bSUFuWe8C2aCGD1MR8zCtg8m5M9uwsCRT8BjT-K9PZRgHBh_45bi_YSNmrDd9SCIhVuRmdKbT6BEbrNz08T3JaPe8oA/s1600/SC4J_Opsahl-Arntzen-Schei.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 358px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 318px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 95%;">Language Discrimination and Lack of Clear Principles by Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges Norwegian Language Rulings, in response to English Language complaints in Case 12-071: Judge Nina Opsahl, 12-072: Judge Wenche Arntzen, 12-073: Judge Tore Schei.<br />
<br />
Argument: <br />
<br />
[1] Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges Norwegian Language Rulings to complaints filed in English are in violation of Article 14: Prohibition of Discrimination and Article 13: Right to an Effective Remedy , read in conjunction with Article 6 (3)(a): Right to a Fair Hearing in a language which you understand .<br />
<br />
[2] Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges failure to clearly inform me of their intention to provide Rulings in Norwegian, in response to my complaints filed in English, are in violation of ECHR ruling in Lithgow & Others v. United Kingdom , where it held that the rule of law requires provisions of legislation to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law.<br />
<br />
Relief Requested:<br />
<br />
Request for English Translation of Supervisory Committee for Judges Rulings in Complaints against (i) Judge Nina Opsahl (12-071), (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen (12-072) and (3) Justice Tore Schei (12-073). </span></blockquote><a name='more'></a><div align="center"><a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJZPj_1SWXWvyLlmRAgy0CECpSqhbfzctqlXhs97tHB4maoYbOMEvkQ9wg8GGeJtrggM9CDTSYcuf0w6P8PMn3xY-0nr91BulyjINw0y0Hspz-SGwc5NgHa1VtgcBwZpc3PRRkdJ8Mrs/s1600/NorwayVBreivik_FleurdeLis_MargaretHagen_556x119.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Language Discrimination by Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges</span></span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Language Discrimination and Lack of Clear Principles by Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges Norwegian Language Rulings, in response to English Language complaints in Case 12-071: Judge Nina Opsahl, 12-072: Judge Wenche Arntzen, 12-073: Judge Tore Schei. (<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-12-31_po-cf_ssc4j_disc-amb_encl-comp-abc.pdf">PDF</a>)</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<b>Overview:</b><br />
<br />
On 30 May 2012 and 06 June 2012, I filed three complaints with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges respectively against: (1) <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/12-073-justice-tore-schei.html">Judge Tore Schei</a>, (2) <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/12-072-judge-wenche-arntzen.html">Judge Wenche Arntzen</a> and (3) <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/12-071-judge-nina-opsahl.html">Judge Nina Opsahl</a>. <br />
<br />
After much delay and obstruction, on 03 September 2012, I was issued Case Numbers and informed that my complaints had been given the case numbers of 12-071 (Judge Nina Opsahl), 12-072 (Judge Wenche E. Arntzen) and 12-073 (Justice Tore Schei). Furthermore that “If a party have given a statement in the case, these will be provided the complainant. The Supervisory Committee has not received statements from the other parties involved.”<br />
<br />
I was never informed the rulings of the Judges would be in Norwegian. I was also never provided with any parties statements. <br />
<br />
On 23 October 2012, the Supervisory Committee for Judges issues the rulings in the matter (without hearing any of the parties statements, or providing me with a response to their statements), and issued the rulings in Norwegian. <br />
<br />
On 12 November I requested an English translation. On 14 November the Supervisory Committee for Judges refused to provide me with an English translation, stating that the ‘decisions are always in Norwegian’. Furthermore that allegedly “there has never been a tradition to write the decisions in English even if the complaint is in English”. The Supervisory Committee for Judges did not provide any evidence for this statement. <br />
<br />
Requests on 14 November and 15 December for English translations have been ignored. <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">ARGUMENT:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
[1] Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges Norwegian Language Rulings to complaints filed in English are in violation of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Article_14_-_discrimination">Article 14: Prohibition of Discrimination</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Article_13_-_effective_remedy">Article 13: Right to an Effective Remedy</a>, read in conjunction with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Article_6_-_fair_trial">Article 6 (3)(a): Right to a Fair Hearing in a language which you understand</a>.<br />
<br />
The Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges accepted my complaint filed in English. <br />
<br />
If an organisation, government body or court accepts a complaint written in a particular language, then they should provide the speaker of such language with the response in that particular language.<br />
<br />
If an organisation, government body or court does not accept complaints in any particular language, then they should inform the complainant that they do not accept complaints in such particular language, and reasons therefore, when the complainant files their complaint. <br />
<br />
The Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges did not notify me of any ‘standard procedures’, that I would not be provided with a ruling in the language in which I filed the complaint. <br />
<br />
[2] Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges failure to clearly inform me of their intention to provide Rulings in Norwegian, in response to my complaints filed in English, are in violation of ECHR ruling in <a href="http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-57526">Lithgow & Others v. United Kingdom</a>, where it held that the rule of law requires provisions of legislation to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law.<br />
<blockquote>“As regards the phrase "subject to the conditions provided for by law", it requires in the first place the existence of and compliance with adequately accessible and sufficiently precise domestic legal provisions (see, amongst other authorities, the alone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 31-33, paras. 66-68).”</blockquote><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">RELIEF REQUESTED:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
Request for English Translation of Supervisory Committee for Judges Rulings in Complaints against (i) Judge Nina Opsahl (12-071), (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen (12-072) and (3) Justice Tore Schei (12-073).<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
On 06 June 2012 I noted that I had not yet received any information detailing the process and procedure for my complaints, and additionally provided the completed signed “Skjema for klage på dommere til Tilsynsutvalget for dommere (TU)” forms for my complaints in English.<br />
<br />
On 04 July, I submitted to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing or Failure to Provide Case Processing by Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges: RE: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges Complaints in Norway v. Breivik matter against (i) Chief Justice Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Judge Nina Opsahl. (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120704_ombud_sscj?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>)<br />
<br />
On 11 July, Parliamentary Ombudsman: Head of Division: Berit Sollie: Case Ref: 2012-1943: Lack of Response from the Supervisory Committee for Judges, <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/07/120711_po-sscj.html">responded</a> that I had to submit an additional "written request to Tilsynsutvalget for dommere, where you call for answers to your applications. If you do not receive a response to this request within a reasonable time, you can contact the Ombudsman, with an enclosed copy of the last request to Tilsynsutvalget for dommere."<br />
<br />
On 20 July I again <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/07/120720_sscj-po.html">submitted a request</a> to Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges: National Courts Administration: <i>RE: 30 May 2012 Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges complaints against Complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei; Judge Wenche Arntzen and Judge Nina Opsahl</i>. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>I am still waiting for the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, to provide me with a Case and/or Reference Number for my complaint/s, including details about processing of my complaint/s in Norway v. Breivik matter against respectively: (1) Judge Nina Opsahl, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Chief Justice Tore Schei. <br />
<br />
Please Note: In case of Absence of Response from Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, providing a case number and details of processing of my complaint (or alternatively a final date by when such information shall be provided to me by the Committee), by 27 July 2012; the complaint shall be submitted to: Parliamentary Ombudsman. </blockquote><br />
On 20 July 2012 I responded to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943, that I was still waiting for a response to my Complaint to Secretariat for Supv. Committee of Judges: Against Justice Tore Schei | Judge Wenche Arntzen | Judge Nina Opsahl <br />
<br />
On 31 July 2012, I received a <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/07/120731_da-eikene.html">response</a> from Supv. Comm. for Judges: <br />
<br />
Response from Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges: Court Administration: Senior Advisor: Ms Espen Eiken: Re: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl: "We refer to your three complaints to the Supervisory Committee for Judges (Tilsynsutvalget for dommere). Your complaints will be handled according to our standard procedure. According to our standard procedure we don’t send a confirmation letter to inform that we have received a complaint. Each complaint will be given a case number. The average handling time for the Supervisory Committee has lately been up to six months."<br />
<br />
On 01 August 2012, I <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/120801_scj_eikene.html">responded</a> to Supv. Comm. for Judges:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Can you please clarify; so that I am crystal clear about the Committee's process, and can continue these proceedings with confidence in the Committee's impartial objectivity and professionalism: 1. It will take six months for me to be issued a case number? 2. Or, it will take six months to complete the complaint enquiry?</blockquote><br />
21 August 2012: Correspondence to Supv. Comm. for Judges:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>I have still received No Response from Supv. Comm. for Judges to my questions (01 August 2012) in response to your correspondence (31 July 2012). </blockquote><br />
31 August: <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/120831_ssc4j-caseno.html">Correspondence</a> to Supervisory Comm. for Judges: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>I am still awaiting a response to the questions in my correspondence of 01 August 2012, and 21 August, in response to your correspondence of 31 July 2012.<br />
<br />
Awaiting clarification on (1) Committee does not Acknowledge Receipt of Complaints; (2) Standard Procedure: <br />
<br />
Can you please clarify; so that I am crystal clear about the Committee's process, and can continue these proceedings with confidence in the Committee's impartial objectivity and professionalism: (1) It will take six months for me to be issued a case number?; (2) Or, it will take six months to complete the complaint enquiry?</blockquote><br />
02 Sept: <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/09/120902_po-ssc4j1.html">Complaint to Parl. Ombudsman</a>: Slow Case Processing:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Complaint (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120902_po-sscj?mode=window&viewMode=singlePage">PDF</a>) submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing or Failure to Provide Case Processing by Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges: RE: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges Complaints in Norway v. Breivik matter against (i) Chief Justice Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Judge Nina Opsahl. <br />
<br />
Slow Case Processing: Supv. Comm. for Judges/ Tilsynsutvalget for dommere have obstructed my requests for a Case number since 06 June 2012, and for information about the level of transparency of their ‘standard procedure’ since 31 July 2012.<br />
<br />
Failure to Provide Case Processing: Supv. Comm. for Judges/ Tilsynsutvalget for dommere appear to be attempting to refuse to provide me with a Case Number, in their attempts to obstruct my complaint from the public record. [Withdrawn on 04 Sept: PO: 02.09 Supv. Comm. for Judges Complaint resolved on 03.09] </blockquote><br />
03 Sept: <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/09/120903_ssc4j-1445.html">Response</a> from Supv. Comm. for Judges: Issuance of Case Number: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Your complaints have been given the case numbers 12-071 (Judge Nina Opsahl), 12-072 (Judge Wenche E. Arntzen) and 12-073 (Justice Tore Schei). The complete handling time can be close to six months.<br />
<br />
If a party have given a statement in the case, these will be provided the complainant. The Supervisory Committee has not received statements from the other parties involved." </blockquote><br />
03 Sept 2012: <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/09/120903_ssc4j-1520.html">Response</a> to Supv. Comm. for Judges: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Thank you for the information. I am now clear of what is expected of me. I shall wait to receive the parties statements; and acknowledge that I am aware that the complete handling time can be upto six months. I have no objections thereto. <br />
<br />
Until I receive any parties statement, I do not expect you to be hearing from me, until I respond thereto. <br />
<br />
I filed a subsequent complaint of slow case handling to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, on 02 September. I shall notify them, that it is no longer necessary, and withdraw the complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. I shall provide you a copy of my withdrawal of the complaint for your records. I hope to do so later today." [<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/09/120904_po-ssc4j.html">Withdrawn on 04 Sept</a>: PO: 02.09 Supv. Comm. for Judges Complaint resolved on 03.09] </blockquote><br />
<b>23 Oct: Supv. Comm. for Judges Ruling: 'Obviously Unfounded'</b><br />
<br />
[Received 02 November] On 23 October, the Supervisory Committee for Judges changed their minds and decided they were not going to process the complaints. <br />
<br />
Previously they had said that the complaints would be processed, whereby all the Judges would be required to submit a statement about their reasons, in accordance to the issues raised in the complaints. <br />
<br />
However the Supervisory Committee for Judges now decided that all the Judges do not have to submit their affidavits, and the complaints will be ruled as 'obviously unfounded' (Google translation). <br />
<br />
The decisions by the Committee are in Norwegian.<br />
<br />
12 Nov: <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/11/121112_ssc4j.html">Correspondence</a> to Supv. Comm. For Judges: Req for Info & English Translation of Ruling:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>I have received the rulings. Thank you.<br />
<br />
1. Could you clarify why they are in Norwegian? <br />
<br />
2. Could you clarify who the person was who made the decision that the rulings should be made in Norwegian<br />
<br />
3. Could you provide an English translation? <br />
<br />
4. If not, could you provide me with the name of the person who refuses to provide an English translation.<br />
<br />
5. Finally: Could you also confirm whether the Supervisory Committee received any verbal or written statements from the parties; and if so, why such statements were not provided to me.<br />
<br />
Espen Eiken: 03 Sep: "If a party have given a statement in the case, these will be provided the complainant. The Supervisory Committee has not received statements from the other parties involved."</blockquote><br />
14 Nov: <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/11/121114_ssc4j1.html">Correspondence</a> from Ms. Eiken: Req for Info Re: Language Policy:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The decisions of the Supervisory Committee for Judges are always written in Norwegian. There has never been a tradition to write the decisions in English even if the complaint is in English. There was no individual person who decided that the decisions should be made in Norwegian. The Committee has no arrangement for translating its decisions. It is therefore assumed that the complainants provides necessary translations. The Supervisory Committee have not received any statements from the parties. </blockquote><br />
14 Nov: <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/11/121114_ssc4j1.html">Response</a> to Supervisory Committee for Judges: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>So, are you saying that the Supervisory Committee for Judges who dealt with my complaints cannot speak or write English? Who translated my complaint for them, or did they just ignore it, cause they do not speak English, and refuse all complaints that are not in Norwegian? <br />
<br />
Surely if a court accepts a complaint written in a particular language, then they should provide the speaker of such language with the response in their language, or they should inform the complainant to fuck off, because they refuse to accept complaints in any language except Norwegian? <br />
<br />
How did the Justices know what the complaint was about, if they cannot speak English? Does the Supervisory Committee for Judges accept complaints in English? If so, how can they justify providing a ruling that is not in the language of the complaint? <br />
<br />
Either they should only accept complaints in Norwegian, or if they accept complaints in other languages, then they should provide a ruling in that particular language? </blockquote><br />
15 Dec: <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/12/121215_ssc4j.html">Reminder Request</a> to Supv. Committee for Judges: Ms. Eiken:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>I am still awaiting a response to my email of 14 November: I repeat: <br />
<br />
Are you saying that the Supervisory Committee for Judges who dealt with my complaints cannot speak or write English? Who translated my complaint for them, or did they just ignore it, cause they do not speak English, and refuse all complaints that are not in Norwegian? <br />
<br />
Surely if a court accepts a complaint written in a particular language, then they should provide the speaker of such language with the response in their language, or they should inform the complainant to fuck off, because they refuse to accept complaints in any language except Norwegian? <br />
<br />
How did the Justices know what the complaint was about, if they cannot speak English? Does the Supervisory Committee for Judges accept complaints in English? If so, how can they justify providing a ruling that is not in the language of the complaint? <br />
<br />
Either they should only accept complaints in Norwegian, or if they accept complaints in other languages, then they should provide a ruling in that particular language?</blockquote><br />
There has been no response from the Supervisory Committee of Judges or Ms. Eiken.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/12-12-31_po-cf_ssc4j_disc-amb_encl-comp-abc?mode=window&viewMode=singlePage">ISSUU</a> :: <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-12-31_po-cf_ssc4j_disc-amb_encl-comp-abc.pdf">PDF</a> :: <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/12-1943-court-admin.html">Parl Ombud Complaint</a>]</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-56775203142405657742013-01-20T06:37:00.000-08:002013-02-05T06:38:23.096-08:00ECHR: Oslo District Courts Breivik Necessity Judgement is Discriminatory & Ineffective Remedy<div align="justify"><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">ECHR: European Court of Human Rights Application: Oslo District Courts Breivik Necessity Judgement is Discriminatory & Ineffective Remedy</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Right wing extremist terrorist Anders Breivik deserves a free and fair trial, and an objective and subjective enquiry into his political necessity evidence; by the Left wing extremist Norwegian Government; upon the same Norwegian rule of law due process principles; as left wing extremist terrorist Nelson Mandela deserved a free and fair trial, and an impartial objective and subjective enquiry into the evidence for his defence; by the Right wing extremist South African Apartheid government.</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">19 January 2013 | Ecofeminist v Breivik | Andrea Muhrrteyn</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbbyyVUSfcw62pzaKnIL6ijW4LD3ZGdmg4RDXnXzPADBH2blz7xEo0GXIMVKibp7SWQbGd_DnSkLbNeRb777e28v6O0mDlIVYaDC-OrXuR3Ml0Y6DlwV6wsnqU2bLLT_4W6U6B7JT6-dc/s1600/ECHR_JvNO_Breivik.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIbKKLBC3qWmSGeNFJeX__5WLJQuWbC_34SucTWWJu5aSv1mU7orvsKe0z8jwt4FFRNW6OY9rR_KbRxL3STl4-TOBevPIEPMX3S7J-Hh8r-LjpUlyLequC_t_rf7tYLAD0oyBwdm78pPQ/s1600/ECHR_JvNO_Breivik_350x338.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 338px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 350px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 95%;">Human Rights Violations complained of: <br />
<br />
• <b>Discrimination</b>: 24 August 2012: Oslo District Court: Judge Wenche Arntzen: Norway v. Anders Breivik Necessity Judgement <br />
<br />
• <b>Discrimination and Denied Right to an Effective Remedy</b>: Supreme Court: Secretary General Gunnar Bergby: 10 September 2012 Decision<br />
<br />
• <b>Discrimination and Denied Right to an Effective Remedy</b>: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Head of Division: Berit Sollie: 15 November 2012 Ruling <br />
<br />
The (i) 10 September 2012, administrative decision of Norway Supreme Court Secretary General Gunnar Bergby, denying Applicant Access to Court by refusing to process her 27 August 2012, Application for Review of the Oslo District Court: ‘Breivik Judgement’; and (ii) the 15 November 2012 ruling by Parliamentary Ombudsman, that Secretary General’s Gunnar Bergby’s administrative decision, was a ‘judgement/decision by a court of law’, thereby justifying his refusal to order Secretary General Bergby to process Applicants Application for Review; were (iii) violations of applicants right to an Effective Remedy and (iv) were motivated acts of ideological discrimination against the ‘right wing’ or ‘cultural conservatives’, and against anyone – particularly anyone who is not ‘right wing’ -- who opposes, or objects to Ideological Discrimination against ‘right wing’ (cultural conservatives).</span></blockquote><a name='more'></a><div align="center"><a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJZPj_1SWXWvyLlmRAgy0CECpSqhbfzctqlXhs97tHB4maoYbOMEvkQ9wg8GGeJtrggM9CDTSYcuf0w6P8PMn3xY-0nr91BulyjINw0y0Hspz-SGwc5NgHa1VtgcBwZpc3PRRkdJ8Mrs/s1600/NorwayVBreivik_FleurdeLis_MargaretHagen_556x119.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div><br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Excerpts from ECHR Application alleging Oslo District Courts Breivik's Necessity Judgement is Discriminatory & an Ineffective Remedy</span></span></strong> </blockquote></div><br />
<blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">II. Statement of the Facts</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<b>14.1 Overview: Violations of Right to an Effective Remedy, by Supreme Court Secretary General and Parliamentary Ombudsman:</b><br />
<br />
<blockquote>A. The (i) 10 September 2012, administrative decision of Norway Supreme Court Secretary General Gunnar Bergby, denying Applicant Access to Court by refusing to process her 27 August 2012, Application for Review of the Oslo District Court: ‘Breivik Judgement’; and (ii) the 15 November 2012 ruling by Parliamentary Ombudsman, that Secretary General’s Gunnar Bergby’s administrative decision, was a ‘judgement/decision by a court of law’, thereby justifying his refusal to order Secretary General Bergby to process Applicants Application for Review; were (iii) violations of applicants right to an Effective Remedy and (iv) were motivated acts of ideological discrimination against the ‘right wing’ or ‘cultural conservatives’, and against anyone – particularly anyone who is not ‘right wing’ -- who opposes, or objects to Ideological Discrimination against ‘right wing’ (cultural conservatives).</blockquote><br />
<b>14.2 Overview: Discrimination and Right to an Effective Remedy:</b><br />
<br />
14.3 The Norwegian government has no justification to discriminate against an accused, by denying the accused his Right to a Free and Fair Trial (an effective remedy), simply because an accused is an ‘extreme right wing conservative’. <br />
<br />
14.4 The Norwegian government has no justification to discriminate against a ‘right wing’ accused, whose primary objective is to profit from such ‘liberal left wing’ discrimination against him, to attain ‘right wing’ martyr and victimhood status, thereby to emotionally outrage right wing conservatives, and contribute to greater polarisation of the public into left vs. right wing camps. <br />
<br />
14.5 The Norwegian government has no justification to discriminate against a ‘right wing’ accused, for the covert purposes of profiting from such left vs right wing polarisation consequences of denying a right wing accused his right to a free and fair trial. <br />
<br />
14.6 The Norwegian government has no justification to politically profit from denying a ‘hated’ accused their right to a free and fair trial, simply because the public is emotionally outraged and on a ‘right wing extremist witch hunt’ and obtain schadenfreude satisfaction from observing the judicial system discriminate against such ‘hated’ individual.<br />
<br />
14.7 The Norwegian government has no justification to discriminate against any individual who does not share the ‘right wing’ accused’s ideology, nor the public’s rabid emotional ‘right wing witch hunt’ hysteria for revenge and denial of the rule of law to the ‘right wing’ accused, who endorses the ‘right wing’ accused’s right to a free and fair trial.<br />
<br />
14.8 Anthropocentrically speaking: Right wing extremist terrorist Anders Breivik deserves a free and fair trial, and an objective and subjective enquiry into his political necessity evidence; by the Left wing extremist Norwegian Government; upon the same Norwegian rule of law due process principles; as left wing extremist terrorist Nelson Mandela deserved a free and fair trial, and an impartial objective and subjective enquiry into the evidence for his defence; by the Right wing extremist South African Apartheid government.<br />
<br />
<b>14.9 ‘Norway’s Politically Correct Discrimination & Censorship of Cultural Conservatives, by Feminists and Multiculturalists justified the Violent ‘Necessity’ of 22 July 2011 Attacks’ – Anders Breivik</b><br />
<br />
A. On 22 July 2011, a fertilizer truck bomb exploded in Oslo within Regjeringskvartalet, in front of the office of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, at 15:25:22 (CEST), killing eight and injuring at least 209; and ninety minutes later, a mass shooting occurred at a summer camp organized by the AUF, the youth division of the ruling Norwegian Labour Party (AP) on the island of Utøya in Tyrifjorden, Buskerud, by a gunman dressed in a homemade police uniform, killing 69, and injuring at least 110.<br />
<br />
B. The Norwegian Police arrested Anders Behring Breivik, born 13 February 1979, on Utøya island and charged him with both attacks. Breivik admitted to having carried out the actions he was accused of, but denied criminal guilt and claimed the defence of necessity (jus necessitatis).<br />
<br />
C. Breivik’s necessity justification – as detailed in his Manifesto: 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence and simplistically referred to as “Titanic Europe is on a demographic/immigration collision course with Islam Iceberg” -- was two-pronged: (1) Resist Eurabia: He believes Islam and cultural Marxism are involved in a ‘Eurabian’ demographic colonisation and ethnic cleansing of indigenous Norwegians and Europeans, and that it is a matter of necessity to resist “Eurabia”, to preserve European Christendom; (2) Gov & Media Censorship required Ultra violence to Access International Publicity: Non-violent resistance is futile, as democracy is no longer functioning in Norway, due to politically correct discrimination and exclusion – by means of censorship and persecution – of cultural conservatives by the left wing extremist Norwegian government and media. <br />
<br />
D. According to Oslo Organized Crime Police Investigation Report: “Explanation of 22 July 2011, doc 08,01”: “[Breivik] emphasizes that if he had not been censored by the media all his life, he would not have had to do what he did. He believes the media have the main responsibility for what has happened because they did not publish his opinions.... The low-intensity civil war that he had already described, had lasted until now with ideological struggle and censorship of cultural conservatives...... He explains that this is the worst day of his life and that he has dreaded this for 2 years. He has been censored for years. He mentions Dagbladet and Aftenposten as those who among other things have censored him..... He says that he also wrote “essays” that he tried to publish via the usual channels, but that they were all censored..... The subject summarizes: As long as more than twelve were executed, the operation will still be a success. The experts ask how the number twelve comes into consideration. Twelve dead are needed to penetrate the censorship wall, he explains..... About his thoughts on the Utøya killings now, the subject says: The goal was to execute as many as possible. At least 30. It was horrible, but the number had to be assessed based on the global censorship limit. Utøya was a martyrdom, and I am very proud of it..... He believes he had to kill at least twelve, because there is a censorship-wall preventing an open debate about what is happening in the country..... So I knew I had to cross a certain threshold to exceed the censorship-wall of the international media.” <br />
<br />
E. As argued in Anders Breivik 22 June 2012 Closing Statement: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>a. “Mullah Krekar [a Kurdish Islamic refugee in Norway] .. calls himself a Kurdish religious leader. He is one of the few Muslim leaders who are honest about Islam’s takeover of Europe. Krekar said, “In Denmark they printed drawings, but the result was that support of Islam increased. I, and all Muslims, are evidence. You have not managed to change us. It is we who are changing you. Look at the changes in the population of Europe, where Muslims reproduce like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in Europe has 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries gives birth to 3.5 children.” <br />
<br />
b. “One of the most influential people in Norway, Arne Strand [a print and broadcast journalist and former member of Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland's cabinet] in Dagsavisen [the daily newspaper Strand edits, until 1999 the official organ of the Labor Party, now independent] has issued many statements about press subsidies. He proposes that everyone on the right, to the right of Carl I. Hagen [former Vice President of the Storting (Norwegian Parliament) and ex-chairman of the Progress Party], should be censored, and excluded from the democratic process. He says straight out that government press subsidies [to the Left, denied to the right] are necessary to preserve the current political hegemony. We must protect hegemony, we must not allow people the right to express themselves. The system of press subsidies ensures that Norway will never be a democracy, because those on the far right are excluded.” <br />
<br />
c. “This trial should be about finding the truth. The documentation of my claims—are they true? If they are true, how can what I did be illegal? Norwegian academics and journalists work together and make use of [..] methods to deconstruct Norwegian identity, Christianity, and the Norwegian nation. How can it be illegal to engage in armed resistance against this? The prosecution wondered who gave me a mandate to do what I did. [..] I have answered this before, but will do so again. Universal human rights, international law, and the right to self-defense provided the mandate to carry out this self-defense. Everything has been triggered by the actions of those who consciously and unconsciously are destroying our country. Responsible Norwegians and Europeans who feel even a trace of moral obligation are not going to sit by and watch as we are made into minorities in our own lands. We are going to fight. The attacks on July 22 were preventive attacks in defense of my ethnic group, the Norwegian indigenous people. I therefore cannot acknowledge guilt. I acted from necessity (nødrett) on behalf of my people, my religion and my country.”</blockquote><br />
14.10 Norwegian Prosecutors did not embark on legal proceedings to dispute and negate the evidence of Breivik’s ‘Necessity’ evidence, by means of a Political Necessity ‘Right Wing’ Terrorism trial, wherein Breivik’s Necessity evidence was proven unjustified, in accordance to the required Objective and Subjective test; but chose instead to proceed with a Stalinesque Political Psychiatry show trial, where Breivik was alleged to be ‘insane’, and was forced to prove his sanity. Once his sanity was proven, the matter of an impartial free and fair Terrorism Necessity trial, to determine his guilt or innocence, was ignored, as irrelevant. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>14.11 Applicant’s EcoFeminist Political Necessity Activism and Social Science Enquiry Ecological Biocentric worldview:</b><br />
<br />
14.12 Applicant is neither anthropocentrically liberal nor conservative, but an EcoFeminist Guerrylla Law Sustainable Security Radical Honoursty Transparency Primitivist and paralegal interested and active in Political Necessity civil disobedience activism. <br />
<br />
14.13 She is the founder of the unregistered Guerrylla Law Radical Honoursty Party, the aim of which is to establish a Green License to Vote, to elect a Green President, to transition South Africa into a Sustainable Voluntaryist (Honourable Free Society of Men and Women capable of ruling themselves) Green Republic. <br />
<br />
14.14 The Guerrylla Law Radical Honoursty Party, is founded on the Guerrylla Law Radical Honoursty Social Contract which include, among others, the following principles:<br />
<br />
A. <i><b>Radical Honoursty Problem Solving Communicator Status</b></i>: Any individual who desires this ‘status’ is required to follow the Radical Honoursty Problem Solving Communicator communication principles. All written communication for such members attention must be (a) acknowledged as received, (b) honestly answered or the questioner to be notified of a ‘by when’ date, when honest answers shall be provided. (c) Brutal honesty is considered honourable respect; sycophancy or PR is considered passive aggressive, manipulative and insulting. (d) In any disagreement or misunderstanding with another member, to commit to remain in discussion, with each other, until it is resolved. (e) Any member who ignores or evades another member’s attempts to resolve a disagreement, or to answer a question, will be put on the ‘Dishonourable Hit List’ for Party assassination after two final warning notices to the member, from the party to either: (a) resign, or (b) resolve the disagreement, by a specific date, in accordance to their Radical Honoursty Problem Solving Communicator Status oath.<br />
<br />
B. <i><b>Sustainability</b></i>: A Sustainable society regulates human procreation and/or resource utilization behaviour , to ensure sustainability. <br />
<br />
C. <i><b>Sustainable Rights</b></i>: Laws of Nature determine that Environmental or ecological rights and responsibilities are the sine qua non foundation for all other Rights . <br />
<br />
D. <i><b>Sustainable Security</b></i>: ‘There is no security without sustainability’ : In the absence of an international new moral order where Ecocentric Guerrylla laws are implemented to regulate and reduce human procreation and resource utilization behaviour, towards a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm; “overpopulation and resource scarcity will result in conflict and war” (perhaps nuclear ) confronting regions at an accelerated pace , resulting in the “collapse of the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy” by 2050 .<br />
<br />
E. <i><b>Guerrylla Laws</b></i>: define the procreation and consumption behaviour of an individual as an Eco-Innocent (sustainable) or Scarcity-Combatant (unsustainable), based upon (A) a sustainable bio-capacity of 1 global hectare (gha) (60 % of 1.8 gha ) in accordance with the proactive conservation policies of Bhutan ; and (B) the Oregon University study that concludes that every child increases a parents’ eco-footprint by a factor of 20 . <br />
<br />
F. A Green Voter is an individual whose procreation and consumption behaviour is sustainable, as defined by Guerrylla laws, as an Eco-Innocent .<br />
<br />
G. Only Green Voters can elect the Green President, whose general duty is to (A) protect the Constitution from the Tragedy of the Commons material greed and psychological and political dishonour of the nations Scarcity (breeding and consumption) combatants, who wish to exploit the country’s resources for short-term political and socio-economic profits, and (B) transition South Africa to a Sustainable Voluntaryist Green Republic. <br />
<br />
H. The Green President’s sustainable security legislative duty is to veto all legislation that obstructs, or fails to reduce, the nation’s Scarcity combatant’s procreation and/or consumption path to sustainability, based upon Guerrylla law sustainable rights and sustainable security principles. <br />
<br />
I. The Green Presidents sustainable security executive duty is to protect the Constitution, root out all corruption, by taking over the duty of executive supervision of the Ministry of Police and Ministry of Justice, including the appointment of all Magistrates and Justices. Magistrates and Judges shall be required to ascertain, verify, and transparently declare – as part of the court record - the Eco-Innocent (sustainable) or Scarcity-Combatant (unsustainable) status of all parties (including the Judge, legal representatives and State Representatives) to any court proceeding; including consideration of such status, where relevant to the legal proceedings. Any Eco-Innocent is entitled to be tried by an Eco-Innocent Prosecutor and Judge, and in any dispute with a Scarcity Combatant, may require the court to take notice of Scarcity Combatants behaviour as a relevant aggravating factor to Scarcity related socio-political problems, such as: crime, violence, unemployment, poverty, food shortages, inflation, political instability, loss of civil rights, conformism, political correctness, vanishing species, pollution, urban sprawl, toxic waste, energy depletion.<br />
<br />
J. An individual can only run for Green President, as (A) an Independent or from a Political Party, which practices 100% transparency disclosure of all campaign contributions, and (B) whose procreation and consumption lifestyle qualifies them as an Eco-Innocent .<br />
<br />
14.15 Applicant consequently partially agrees with Breivik, that not only Europe, but the World is at War, but considers the economic, political and military war between the Political Left and Right to be a deliberate distraction, from the real war that is being waged by both the Left and Right’s support for the Ind:Civ:F(x) world war against nature. <br />
<br />
14.16 <i><b>Ind:Civ:F(x) World War</b></i>: Industrial Civilization’s Exponential Economic Growth Breeding and Consumption War Scarcity combatant humans are at war with each other (Left v Right), Eco-Innocents, all other species for their preferential access to , and control of, nature’s finite resources. <br />
<br />
14.17 Applicant’s terrorism default working hypothesis is that much of terrorism – whether left or right -- is a result of Mainstream Access-to-Discourse Gatekeeper editor’s censorship of dissenter’s attempts at non-violent problem solving, creating a socio-political pressure cooker environment, where activists are forced to resort to violence for publicity, which benefits the media corporations ‘If It Bleeds, it Leads’ editorial policies and corporate profits.<br />
<br />
14.18 Applicant endorses everyone from the extreme left to right’s right to access to impartial courts. Applicant decided to test whether Breiviks allegations of Norway’s discrimination against and censorship of cultural conservatives was true, by means of embarking on a social science test to determine how Left Wing Norwegian Officials and media and right wing Breivik, would react to an EcoFeminist, supporting Breivik’s right to a free and fair trial. <br />
<br />
14.19 Applicant was particularly motivated to test Breivik’s allegations of discrimination against right wing / cultural conservatives, considering his Eco-Innocent status.<br />
<br />
<b>14.20 Anders Breivik: ‘Peacenik Innocent’ in Scarcity Combatants Ind.Civ.F(x) World War on Nature Theory:</b><br />
<br />
A. Dr. Jack Alpert defines Peace and Conflict not as descriptions of behaviour between nations, but as trends describing social conditions. Put differently: Conflict is not defined as the violence between neighbours and nations, but as the unwanted intrusion of one person’s existence and consumption behaviour upon another person. <br />
<br />
B. There are two kinds of conflict: Direct: he took my car, he enslaved me, he beat me, he raped me, he killed me; and Indirect. Indirect intrusions are the by-product of other people's behaviour. ‘All the trees on our island were consumed by our grandparents,’ is an indirect intrusion of a past generation on a present one. ‘The rich people raised the price of gasoline and we can't afford it,’ and ‘The government is offering people welfare to breed more children’ are current economic and demographic intrusions by one present group on another present group. <br />
<br />
C. System conflict is the sum of intrusions experienced by each constituent, summed over all the constituents. A measure of the existing global conflict is the sum of six billion sets of intrusions. A measure of Europe’s conflict is the sum of 740 million sets of intrusions. <br />
<br />
D. Using this definition of conflict, Dr. Alpert establishes that to move Earth’s socio-economic and political system toward peace – in terms of procreation -- would require the implementation of a one child per family policy . In the absence of such rapid population policy, civilization shall collapse . <br />
<br />
E. Consequently, as a result of Breivik’s ‘no children’ status, if his consumption footprint was below 20 global hectares, his status in the Ind.Civ.F(x) world war would be that of an Eco-Innocent. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>14.21 Social Science Enquiry into Breivik’s ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Censorship’ Allegations: 30 November 2011: Ecofeminist Application for Writ of Habeus Mentem and Review of Husby/Sorheim Psych Evaluation Report to Oslo District Court of Judge Nina Opsahl:</b><br />
<br />
A. On 30 November 2011, applicant filed an Application (PDF ) for a [I] writ of Habeus Mentem on behalf of Anders Breivik psycho-cultural integrity right to a free and fair trial; and [II] writ of Certiorari/Review of the Psychiatric Evaluation Report of Psychiatrists: Synne Sorheim and Torgeir Husby as to the Mens Rea political necessity criminal liability of Anders Breivik terrorist acts, on 22 July 2011. The application was filed electronically to the Oslo District Court Registrar.<br />
<br />
B. Notifications of the Application were sent to: 680 EU Members of Parliament on 04 December; 330 Norwegian Government Officials on 05 December; and 1,283 Norwegian Editors and Journalists on 07 December 2011. The Norwegian media did not consider an EcoFeminists (Breiviks enemy) legal support for Breivik to receive a free and fair trial, to be worthy of publicity; preferring the narrative that only the extreme right wing supported a free and fair trial for Breivik.<br />
<br />
C. On 15 December 2011 applicant requested the Registrar to “confirm: (1) the date my application is to be submitted to Judge Opsahl, or the relevant Judge, for their consideration, (2) the date the said Judge intends to provide me with their ruling on the matter.” There was no response from the Clerk of the Court. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>14.22 Social Science Enquiry into Breivik’s ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Censorship’ Allegations: 15 April 2012: Ecofeminist Application to Proceed as Amicus Curiae, to Oslo District Court of Judge Wenche Arntzen:</b><br />
<br />
A. On 15 April 2012, Applicant filed an Application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae (PDF ), to the Oslo District Court Registrar. <br />
<br />
B. Notifications were sent to 1,384 Norwegian Editors and Journalists on 16 April 2012. Again the media did not consider an EcoFeminists (Breiviks enemy) legal support for Breivik to receive a free and fair trial, to be worthy of publicity; preferring the narrative that only the extreme right wing supported a free and fair trial for Breivik.<br />
<br />
C. On 26 April 2012, Applicant requested the court to confirm “(1) The date my application is to be submitted to Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, or the relevant Judge, for her/their consideration. (2) The date the said Judge intends to provide me with their ruling approving or denying my application.” There was no response from the Clerk of the Court. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>14.23 Social Science Enquiry into Breivik’s ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Censorship’ Allegations: 10 May 2012: Ecofeminist Application for Review to Norway Supreme Court of Justice Tore Schei:</b><br />
<br />
A. On 10 May 2012, Applicant filed an Application to Review the Oslo District Court failure to act in accordance of due process to the Norway Supreme Court Registrar. <br />
<br />
B. On 11 May 2012 Applicant requested the Registrar to “kindly clarify when the Registrar shall issue a Case Number; or whether you require additional documentation or information?”<br />
<br />
C. On 15 May 2012, Deputy Secretary General Kjersti Buun Nygaard responded with: “Please be advised that the Supreme Court of Norway only handles appeals against judgments given by the lower courts and can consequently not deal with the issue mentioned in your e-mails. Further inquiries from you regarding the above issue can not be expected to be answered.”<br />
<br />
D. On 15 May 2012, Applicant responded (PDF ) detailing the Error in Supreme Court: Deputy Secretary General: Kjersti Buun Nygaard Response to SHARP Application to Supreme Court for Declaratory Orders and Review of Oslo District Court’s Decisions. There was no response from Ms. Nygaard or any other Supreme Court official.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>14.24 Social Science Enquiry into Breivik’s ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Censorship’ Allegations: Complaints against Judge Opsahl, Arentzen and Schei to Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges:</b><br />
<br />
A. On 30 May 2012, three complaints of Violation of Ethical Principles of Norwegian Judges, were submitted to Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges: against Judge Nina Opsahl (PDF ), Judge Wenche Arentzen (PDF ), and Justice Tore Schei (PDF ). The essence of the Oslo District Court complaints being that the Oslo District Court registrar refuses to process the applications, and refusal to provide any reasons for their refusal, clarifying for example, possible errors which require correction, were judicial ethics violations, and a failure of applicants right to due process, and an effective remedy. <br />
<br />
B. Two complaints of slow case processing – on 04 July 2012 (PDF ) and 02 September 2012 (PDF ) -- had to be filed against the Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges with the Parliamentary Ombudsman (Case 2012-1943), before the Secretariat issued Case Numbers: 12-071 (Opsahl), 12-072 (Arntzen) and 12-073 (Schei), on 03 September 2012, and informed the Applicant that “If a party have given a statement in the case, these will be provided the complainant. The Supervisory Committee has not received statements from the other parties involved.”<br />
<br />
C. On 23 October 2012, the Supervisory Committee for Judges changed their minds and decided they were not going to process the complaints in accordance to their ‘standard procedures’, of receiving a statement from the respective Judges, but were going to issue rulings in Norwegian, that all the complaint were ‘obviously unfounded’ (Google Translation). [Opsahl (PDF ), Arntzen (PDF ), and Schei (PDF )]<br />
<br />
D. Repeated requests for an English Translation of the ruling have been refused, including reasons why applicant was not informed, as part of ‘standard procedures’ that the ruling to her English complaint, would be issued in Norwegian.<br />
<br />
E. On 31 December 2012 , a complaint of Language Discrimination and Lack of Clear Principles by Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges Norwegian Language Rulings, in response to English Language complaints in Case 12-071: Judge Nina Opsahl, 12-072: Judge Wenche Arntzen, 12-073: Judge Tore Schei.” (PDF ), was submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. As of date, no response has yet been received.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>14.25 Social Science Enquiry into Breivik’s ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Censorship’ Allegations: 19 June 2012: Appeal to Norway’s Environmental Appeals Board: Media Censorship of Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection:</b><br />
<br />
A. From 24 April to 14 May copies of the 22 April 2012: Earth Day report: <i><b>Acquittal or Firing Squad: If it Bleeds, it Leads, Media's Population Terrorism Connection</b></i> (PDF ) were distributed to: 677 EU Members of Parliament on 24 April; 863 UK Lords and Members of Parliament on 25 April; and on 14 May: 1,230 University of Oslo Law Professors and Lecturers , 482 Law Professors and Lawyers , 1,278 Norwegian Editors and Journalists , PM Jens Stoltenberg and 1676 Norwegian Government Officials , 104 NGO Officials and 258 Psychologists . Again the media did not consider an EcoFeminists (Breiviks enemy) legal support for Breivik to receive a free and fair trial, to be worthy of publicity; preferring the narrative that only the extreme right wing supported a free and fair trial for Breivik.<br />
<br />
B. The “<i><b>If It Bleads, It Leads :: Media Population-Terrorism Connection</b></i>”, Report (PDF ) argued that Mainstream Access-to-Discourse Editors censorship of non-violent political grievances and problem solving activism facilitate a pressure cooker socio-political reality for their “If it Bleads, It Leads” corporate propaganda profits, by (1) censoring the Scarcity (due to Overpopulation and Overconsumption) causes of violent resource war conflict; (2) that media abuse their publicity power in terms of their censorship of Ecocentric arguments submitted to courts; (3) Editors abuse their publicity power, by abusing public discourse/free speech resources; by providing certain parties with preferential and special access to such public discourse, and severely restricting or denying others any access to such public discourse; (4) Mainstream media avoid addressing or enquiring into root causes of problems as reported in Dr. Michael Maher’s report How and Why Journalists Avoid Population - Environment connection (PDF ); and censor non-violent root-cause problem solving activism.<br />
<br />
C. The report also included evidence that (i) 1,283 Norwegian Editors and Journalists had been Informed of the December 2011 Application to the Oslo District Court of Judge Nina Opsahl, all of whom had censored it from their readers; and (ii) 1,384 Norwegian Editors and Journalists had been informed of the April 2012 EcoFeminist Application to the Disctrict Court of Judge Wenche Arntzen, all of whom had censored it from their readers.<br />
<br />
D. On 25 May 2012, correspondence was submitted to: Adresseavisen: Editor: Arne Blix (PDF ); Aftenposten: Editor: Hilde Haugsgjerd (PDF ); Bergens Tidende: Editor: Trine Eilertsen (PDF ); Dagbladet: Editor: John Arne Markussen (PDF ); NRK: Editor: Hans Tore Bjerkaas (PDF ); TV2: Editor: Alf Hildrum (PDF ); VG: Editor: Torry Pedersen (PDF ); requesting the Editors to clarify their editorial decision-making to censor information about the Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection, during a Norwegian Terrorism trial being publicized by international media on the international stage; and their decision-making to censor information regarding the EcoFeminist Applications to the Oslo District Court on behalf of a free and fair trial, for the Feminist hating ‘right wing’ terrorist, from their readers. The editors refused to provide the requested information.<br />
<br />
E. On 19 June 2012, an Appeal (PDF ) was submitted to the Environmental Appeals Board: Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Censorship in Norway’s Media: (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>14.26 Social Science Enquiry into Breivik’s ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Censorship’ Allegations: 10 September 2012: Environmental Appeal Board Ruling on Media Censorship:</b><br />
<br />
A. Initially Applicant’s media censorship complaint was deleted by the Environmental Appeals Board without reason. Upon complaint to Ministry of Environment , it was given a Reference number , with no apology for the deletion, implying the deletion was intentional and appropriate. On 04 July 2012, a complaint of Slow Case Processing (PDF ) was filed to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The Environment Appeals Board refused to simply answer questions, delaying the complaint until ‘after summer’ , and refusing to say when the end of summer would be . Then promising it would be dealt with in August , only to do nothing in August . <br />
<br />
B. On 10 September 2012, the Secretariat of the Environmental Appeals Board issued a ruling (PDF ) – in violation of due process principles, without having received any statements from any media, or Bar Association parties – that Applicant’s Appeal was ‘unjustified’. <br />
<br />
C. On 11 September 2012, Applicant requested reasons for the Environmental Appeals Boards violations of general procedures of impartial enquiry and due process. <br />
<br />
D. On 18 September 2012, the Environmental Appeals Board responded that they violated general procedures of impartial enquiry and due process, because the Appeals ‘clearly had to be denied’. <br />
<br />
E. On 08 October 2012, Applicant responded that it was not clear why her Appeals ‘clearly had to be denied’, unless the Environmental Appeals board was massively corrupt. Applicant requested clarification of the Environmental Appeals Board’s ‘Environment’ definitions, and provided evidence how her appeals were both justified in accordance to the Aarhus convention’s definition of ‘environmental information’. <br />
<br />
F. On 03 November 2012, Applicant submitted an official written request (PDF ) to the Environmental Appeals Board in terms of Public Administration Act (PAA), Section 23, 24, 25 and Freedom of Information Act, Section 22, requesting clarification of the factual and legal grounds upon which the Environmental Appeals Board justified their ruling of ‘clearly had to be denied’, “including clarifying exactly how my complaints do not fit the definition of Environment as clarified by the Aarhus convention and LAW 2003-05-09 # 31: Act concerning the right to information and participation in public decision-making processes relating to the environment (environmental law)”.<br />
<br />
G. On 06 November 2012, the Environmental Appeals Board notified Applicant her request for factual and legal grounds for her denied Appeal, had been denied . <br />
<br />
H. On 11 November 2012, Applicant filed an Appeal (PDF ) to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: Erroneous Decision by Environment Appeals Board in Environmental Information Appeals re: [I] Editorial Decision-Making: Censorship of Media’s ‘Population-Environment-Terrorism’ Connection; [II] Bar Association: Anti-Environmental Complaints Policy. <br />
<br />
I. The Parliamentary Ombudsman Appeal against the Media Censorship Ruling argued (i) It was an Irregular Violation of Due Process: Irregular failure of Impartial Arbitration due process procedures; (ii) the Environmental Appeals Board failed to justify how the requested Population Growth and Consumptionism information requested from the Media is not ‘Environmental Information’: Population Growth and Corporate Advocacy of Consumptionism are primary factors in Resource Scarcity, Species Extinction and Environmental Degradation, and (iii) the Editor’s and Environmental Appeals Board’s Refusal of Access to Information from Media Respondents is Contrary to Provisions of Freedom of Information Act, Right to Environmental Information Act and Aarhus Convention.<br />
<br />
J. On 27 November 2012, the Parliamentary Ombudsman ruled (PDF ) that “The Ombudsman has reviewed your complaint and the enclosed documents, and your complaint does not give reasons to initiate further investigations regarding the Appeals Board case processing or decision.”<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>14.27 Social Science Enquiry into Breivik’s ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Censorship’ Allegations 27 August 2012: Application to Norway Supreme Court, for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement ruling of 24 August:</b><br />
<br />
A. On 27 August 2012, an Application (PDF ) was submitted to Norway Supreme Court for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement Necessity Ruling, which states that “As regards this submission, the Court briefly notes that neither the provisions of the Penal Code concerning necessity nor international human rights, which the defendant also invokes, allow the murder of government employees, politically active youth or others, to further extreme political goals. It is evident that this submission cannot be accepted.” <br />
<br />
B. <i><b>Review Orders Requested</b></i>: <br />
<br />
a. Set Aside the Judgements ‘Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling’ (pg.67 )<br />
<br />
b. 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.<br />
<br />
C. <i><b>Grounds for Review</b></i>: <br />
<br />
a. 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 .<br />
<br />
b. [A.1.a] Necessity Judgement fails to provide any necessity criminal provisions that prohibit killing of Government Officials in case of Necessity <br />
<br />
c. [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.<br />
<br />
d. [A.1.c] Necessity Judgement’s Erroneous interpretation of Necessity related criminal law provisions and international necessity related human rights law.<br />
<br />
e. [A.1.d] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Failure to conduct required Objective and Subjective Tests for Defendant’s Necessity Defence<br />
<br />
f. [A.1.e] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Inadequate<br />
<br />
g. [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.<br />
<br />
h. [A.1.g] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Discriminatory Precedent<br />
<br />
i. [A.1.h] Necessity Judgements ‘Extreme Political Objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test<br />
<br />
j. [A.1.i] Necessity Judgements ‘Extreme Political Objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test<br />
<br />
D. <i><b>Failure of Justice: Judicially Un-Investigated Facts: Necessity and Guilt</b></i>:<br />
<br />
a. No reference was made during court proceedings by any party alleging that any Norwegian or International specific necessity criminal statute specifically prohibits the killing of government or politically active young people, in the event of objective and subjective reasonably determined necessity.<br />
<br />
b. No International or Norwegian specific necessity criminal statute specifically prohibits the killing of government or politically active young people, in the event of objective and subjective reasonably determined necessity.<br />
<br />
c. Necessity criminal statutes do not specifically allow or disallow the killing of government or politically active young people, but provide for an objective and subjective test that examines each alleged criminal act to objectively and subjectively determine whether necessity existed, or the defendant honestly believed it existed, within the particular criminal act‘s relevant circumstances.<br />
<br />
d. The court, prosecution and defence counsel failed to conduct the required subjective and objective tests to examine the evidence for the Defendant‘s necessity motivations 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.<br />
<br />
e. 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.<br />
<br />
f. 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 for its “necessity finding of guilt”, are inadequate. Hence the finding of guilt needs to be set aside for further evidence to objectively and subjective evaluate the defendants necessity defence.<br />
<br />
g. Finally if the Courts statement of reasons remain uncorrected, they would set a bad precedent, encouraging other courts to deny necessity defendants their rights to an objective and subjective test of their necessity defence, including denying the defendant information clarifying upon whom the Onus of Proof in a defence of necessity lies.<br />
<br />
E. <i><b>Oslo Court: Breivik Defence of Necessity</b></i>:<br />
<br />
a. On 17 April 2012, the Oslo Court tweeted to Journalists attending the Breivik trial: “Wrong translation in the 22-7 trial yesterday: Breivik said "nodrett", Correct translation: "Principle of Necessity", not "self defence".”<br />
<br />
b. The principle of Necessity is enshrined in Norwegian Law in Section 47 of the Penal Code : "No person may be punished for any act that he has committed in order to save someone's person or property from an otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the damage that might be caused by his act."<br />
<br />
<br />
F. <i><b>Prosecutor Engh and Holden “Refuse to touch Breivik’s Principle of Necessity”</b></i>:<br />
<br />
a. According to Document.NO , NRK , VG , NRK , the transcripts Prosecutor Engh and Holden violated their duty of objectivity in terms of (a) impartially enquiring into and/or responding to the Accuseds‘ Defence; and (b) providing the court with the Prosecution‘s evaluation and conclusion of the evidence for and against Breivik‘s invocation of his Necessity Defence.<br />
<br />
b. In her closing statement, Prosecutor Engh acknowledges that: (A) Norwegian prosecutors have a duty to conduct their investigation with objectivity; (B) Norwegian law allows for an accused to plead to necessity and/or self defence, (C) Where an accused does invoke necessity, it is the court and prosecutor‘s duty to investigate the accused‘s necessity defence arguments and evidence; (D) If an accused successfully invokes a necessity defence, this can and must result in either mitigation of sentence and/or a verdict of innocence; (E) Breivik invoked the defence of necessity; (F) Despite the fact that Breivik invoked the necessity defence, both Prosecutor Engh and Holden “refuse to touch the principle of necessity”.<br />
<br />
<br />
G. <i><b>Necessity in Norwegian Law</b></i>:<br />
<br />
a. LAW-2005-05-20-28: Lov om straff (straffeloven). | Act on Punishment (Penal Code) , (Google Translation) says: § 17 Necessity: “An action that would otherwise be criminal, is legal when a) it is being undertaken to save lives, health, property or any interest from the danger of injury that can not be averted in any other reasonable manner, and b) the risk of injury is far greater than the risk of injury by the action.”<br />
<br />
b. LAW-1998-03-20-10-§ 5: Forskrift om sikkerhetsadministrasjon | Regulations relating to security management allows for “security breaches without criminal liability if the terms of the principle of necessity or self defence in criminal law law § 47 or § 48 is met.”<br />
<br />
<br />
H. <i><b>Norwegian Law Necessity Judgement: Subjective and Objective Test</b></i>:<br />
<br />
a. In LE-2012-76983 Eidsivating Appeal – Judgment of 29 May 2012, an Eritrean man was accused of several Perjury related Immigration offences to help his sister to come to Norway. He admitted the facts, but claimed necessity. In court he was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal suspended the appeal to test his conviction on one point (whether the court a quo had seriously enquired into his necessity defence).<br />
<br />
b. The Norwegian Court of Appeal agreed with the Defendant‘s argument that asserted that the court a quo had not considered the circumstances that were invoked as the basis for the existence of a principle of necessity situation. The judgement stated that it is clear that “the courts statement of reasons does not show that the court has considered this argument. Thus it is also clear that the Court‘s statement of reasons in so far are inadequate.”<br />
<br />
<br />
I. <i><b>Necessity Defence: International and Foreign Law</b></i>:<br />
<br />
a. The rationale of the necessity defense is not that a person, when faced with the pressure of circumstances of nature, lacks the mental element which the crime in question requires. Rather, it is this reason of public policy: the law ought to promote the achievement of higher values at the expense of lesser values, and sometimes the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law. <br />
<br />
b. The principle of the necessity defence is rooted in common law and any accused pleading to necessity argues that their actions were justified or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants who plead to necessity – whether common law necessity, political necessity (civil disobedience) or military necessity - argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as being criminal, because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm.<br />
<br />
<br />
J. As argued in <i>The Necessity Defense in Civil Disobedience Cases: Bring in the Jury</i>, by William P. Quigley:<br />
<br />
a. [..] The doctrine of necessity, with its inevitable weighing of choices of evil, holds that certain conduct, though it violates the law and produces harm, is justified because it averts a greater evil and hence produces a net social gain or benefit to society. <br />
<br />
b. Glanville Williams expressed the necessity doctrine this way: “[S]ome acts that would otherwise be wrong are rendered rightful by a good purpose, or by the necessity of choosing the lesser of two evils.” He offers this example: “Suppose that a dike threatens to give way, and the actor is faced with the choice of either making a breach in the dike, which he knows will result in one or two people being drowned, or doing nothing, in which case he knows that the dike will burst at another point involving a whole town in sudden destruction. In such a situation, where there is an unhappy choice between the destruction of one life and the destruction of many, utilitarian philosophy would certainly justify the actor in preferring the lesser evil.” <br />
<br />
K. In <i>Nuclear War, Citizen Intervention, and the Necessity Defense</i> , Robert Aldridge and Virginia Stark, document numerous cases of Common Law and Civil Disobedience Necessity Defence Cases which resulted in Innocence verdicts or severe Mitigation of Sentencing.<br />
<br />
L. <i><b>Common Law Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing</b></i>:<br />
<br />
a. In <i>Regina v Dudley and Stephens</i> (1884) 14 QBD 273, three crew members and a cabin boy escaped a shipwreck to spend eighteen days on a boat, over 1,000 miles from land, with no water and only two one pound tins of turnips. After four days, they caught and ate a small turtle. That was the only food that they had eaten prior to the twentieth day of being lost at sea. Ultimately, two of the crew members killed the ailing cabin boy and “fed upon the body and blood of the boy for four days.” Four days later, they were rescued. Two of the men were charged with murder. The court found that the cabin boy would likely have died by the time they were rescued and that the crew members, but for their conduct, would probably have died as well. The Queen's Bench Division Judges held that the defendants were guilty of murder in killing the cabin boy and stated that their obvious necessity was no defence. The defendants were sentenced to death, but this was subsequently commuted to six months' imprisonment.<br />
<br />
b. In <i>Spakes v. State</i>, 913 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), the Texas Criminal Appeals Court allowed the jury to be instructed on the necessity defense before deliberating the verdict for an inmate whose three cellmates had planned an escape and threatened to slit his throat if he did not accompany them. The defendant inmate argued that because of the terribly violent crimes of which his cellmates had been convicted (one had bragged about chopping his girlfriend up with an ax), it was a necessity that he break the law, by accompanying them in their escape.<br />
<br />
c. In <i>United States v. Ashton</i>, 24 F. Cas. 873, 873-74 (C.C.D. Mass 1834) (No. 14,470), sailors prosecuted for mutiny were found not guilty, after arguing the necessity for their mutiny based upon the dangerously leaky ship and that this danger had been concealed from them until after they left port. Circuit Justice Story found them not guilty of mutiny.<br />
<br />
d. In <i>United States v. Holmes</i>, 26 F. Cas. 360 (E.D. Pa. 1842) (No. 15,383), Holmes was involved in a shipwreck, where the crew were charged with manslaughter for throwing sixteen passengers overboard in a frantic attempt to lighten a sinking lifeboat. The Prosecutor argued the passengers should be protected at all costs, whereas the Defence placed the jurors in the sinking lifeboat with the defendant. The Defendant was found guilty, but the jurors requested leniency, to which the court complied by sentencing the defendant to six months in prison and a fine of twenty dollars.<br />
<br />
e. In the 1919 Arizona decision of <i>State v. Wooten</i>, commonly referred to as the Bisbee Deportation case, Professor Morris describes the acquittal of a Sherrif based upon the “necessity” for committing Kidnapping.<br />
<br />
f. In <i>Surocco v. Geary</i>, 3 Cal. 69 (1853), a large fire threatened the unburned half of the then small town of San Francisco. A public officer ordered the destruction of houses to create a firebreak and was subsequently sued by one of the owners. On appeal, the California Supreme Court held that the action was proper because: “The right to destroy property, to prevent the spread of a conflagration, has been traced to the highest law of necessity, and the natural rights of man, independent of society and the civil government. "It is referred by moralists and jurists as the same great principle which justifies the exclusive appropriation of a plank in a shipwreck, though the life of another be sacrificed; with the throwing overboard goods in a tempest, for the safety of the vessel; with the trespassing upon the lands of another, to escape death by an enemy. It rests upon the maxim, Necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura private." [Necessity leads to privileges because of private justice].”<br />
<br />
M. <i><b>Civil Disobedience Political Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing</b></i>:<br />
<br />
a. In the United States, 23 cases of left wing/liberal political protestors necessity defence cases have resulted in innocence or severe mitigation of sentencing, whereas only 1 case of right wing/conservative political protestors cases have resulted in innocence or severe mitigation of sentencing. <br />
<br />
b. Left Wing/Liberal: Anti Nuclear (10): State v. Mouer (Columbia Co. Dist. Ct., Dec. 12-16, 1977), People v. Brown (Lake County, Jan. 1979); People v. Block (Galt Judicial Dist., Sacramento Co. Mun. Ct., Aug. 14, 1979); California v. Lemnitzer, No. 27106E (Pleasanton-Livermore Mun. Ct. Feb. 1, 1982); State v. McMillan, No. D 00518 (San Luis Obispo Jud. Dist. Mun. Ct., Cal. Oct. 13, 1987); Massachusetts v. Schaeffer-Duffy (Worcester Dist. Ct. 1989); West Valley City v. Hirshi, No. 891003031-3 MC (Salt Lake County, Ut. Cir. Ct., W. Valley Dept. 1990); Washington v. Brown, No. 85-1295N (Kitsap County Dist. Ct. N. 1985); California v. Jerome, Nos. 5450895, 5451038, 5516177, 5516159 (Livermore-Pleasanton Mun. Ct., Alameda County, Traffic Div. 1987); Washington v. Karon, No. J85-1136-39 (Benton County Dist. Ct. 1985)<br />
<br />
c. Left Wing/Liberal: Anti US Central American Foreign Policy (3); Vermont v. Keller, No. 1372-4-84-CNCR (Vt. Dist. Ct. Nov. 17, 1984); People v. Jarka, Nos. 002170, 002196-002212, 00214, 00236, 00238 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Apr. 15, 1985); Colorado v. Bock (Denver County Ct. June 12, 1985)<br />
<br />
d. Left Wing/Liberal: Anti-Military Industrial Complex (4): Michigan v. Jones et al., Nos. 83-101194-101228 (Oakland County Dist. Ct. 1984); Michigan v. Largrou, Nos. 85-000098, 99, 100, 102 (Oakland County Dist. Ct. 1985); Massachusetts v. Carter, No. 86-45 CR 7475 (Hampshire Dist. Ct. 1987); Illinois v. Fish (Skokie Cir. Ct. Aug. 1987)<br />
<br />
e. Left Wing/Liberal: Anti-Apartheid (3): Chicago v. Streeter, Nos. 85-108644, 48, 49, 51, 52, 120323, 26, 27 (Cir. Ct., Cook County Ill. May 1985); Washington v. Heller (Seattle Mun. Ct. 1985); Washington v. Bass, Nos. 4750-038, -395 to -400 (Thurston County Dist. Ct. April 8, 1987)<br />
<br />
f. Left Wing/Liberal: Pro-Environment/Cycling (1): People v. Gray, 571 N.Y.S.2d 851, 861-62 (N.Y. Crim. Ct.1991)<br />
<br />
g. Left Wing/Liberal: AIDS: Clean Needles Campaign (2) California v. Halem, No. 135842 (Berkeley Mun. Ct. 1991); In 1993, a jury acquitted a Chicago AIDS activist charged with illegally supplying clean needles because of the necessity defense. <br />
<br />
h. Right Wing/Conservative: Anti-Abortion (1): In 1990, in Omaha, Nebraska, a jury acquitted seventeen anti-abortion protestors because of the necessity defense. The trial judge relied on the defense to overturn the trespassing convictions of an additional eighteen defendants. <br />
<br />
i. Neutral: Anti-Corruption (1): In 1988, a North Carolina court acquitted two Tuscarora Indians of charges in connection with their taking of twenty hostages at the office of a local newspaper to protest the alleged corruption of county officials. <br />
<br />
j. Neutral: Anti-Alcohol Advertising (1): In 1991, a Chicago jury acquitted a Catholic priest of criminal charges for damage to the inner-city neighborhood where he was pastor after he admitted painting over three tobacco- and alcohol-related billboards. The defendant argued he should not be convicted because of the necessity defense. The jury deliberated ninety minutes before acquitting the defendant. <br />
<br />
k. <i><b>Military Necessity and International Humanitarian Law</b></i>:<br />
<br />
l. <i>Crimes of War</i> and <i>Diakona</i> define military necessity as: “a legal concept used in international humanitarian law (IHL) as part of the legal justification for attacks on legitimate military targets that may have adverse, even terrible, consequences for civilians and civilian objects. It means that military forces in planning military actions are permitted to take into account the practical requirements of a military situation at any given moment and the imperatives of winning. The concept of military necessity acknowledges that even under the laws of war, winning the war or battle is a legitimate consideration, though it must be put alongside other considerations of IHL.”<br />
<br />
m. Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, investigated allegations of War Crimes during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and published an open letter containing his findings. In a section titled "Allegations concerning War Crimes" he did not call it military necessity but summed up the term: “Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).”<br />
<br />
N. <i><b>Military Necessity Justifies use of Nuclear Weapons for Self-Preservation</b></i>:<br />
<br />
a. In the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion of 8 July 1996, on The legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons , the final paragraph states “that such threat or use would generally be contrary to international humanitarian law. The opinion went on to state, however, that the court “cannot lose sight of the fundamental right of every State to survival, and thus its right to resort to self-defence . . . when its survival is at stake.” The court held, by seven votes to seven, with its president‘s casting vote, that it “cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self defence in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.”<br />
<br />
O. <i><b>Military Necessity in Nuremberg German High Command Trial</b></i>:<br />
<br />
a. In the <i>Trial of Wilhelm von Leeb and Thirteen Others</i>: United States Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 30th December, 1947 – 28 the October, 1948 <br />
<br />
b. Wilhelm von Leeb and the other thirteen accused in this case were former high-ranking officers in the German Army and Navy, and officers holding high positions in the German High Command (OKW) were charged with Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and with Conspiracy to commit such crimes. The War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity charged against them included murder and ill-treatment of prisoners of war and of the civilian population in the occupied territories and their use in prohibited work; discrimination against and persecution and execution of Jews and other sections of the population by the Wehrmacht in co-operation with the Einsatzgruppen and Sonderkommandos of the SD, SIPO and the Secret Field Police; plunder and spoliation and the enforcement of the slave labour programme of the Reich.<br />
<br />
c. They were acquitted of some of the charges, where it was ascertained that military necessity existed objectively and/or subjectively in the particular circumstances.<br />
<br />
d. The Tribunal argued that “The devastation prohibited by the Hague Rules and the usages of war is that not warranted by military necessity. This rule is clear enough but the factual determination as to what constitutes military necessity is difficult. Defendants in this case were in many instances in retreat under arduous conditions wherein their commands were in serious danger of being cut off. Under such circumstances, a commander must necessarily make quick decisions to meet the particular situation of his command. A great deal of latitude must be accorded to him under such circumstances. What constitutes devastation beyond military necessity in these situations requires detailed proof of an operational and tactical nature. We do not feel that in this case the proof is ample to establish the guilt of any defendant herein on this charge.”<br />
<br />
e. Thus, in dealing with Reinhardt's alleged responsibility for plunder and spoliation, the Tribunal said: “The evidence on the matter of plunder and spoliation shows great ruthlessness, but we are not satisfied that it shows beyond a reasonable doubt, acts that were not justified by military necessity.”<br />
<br />
P. <i><b>Military Necessity: The Rendulic Rule: Importance of the Subjective Test</b></i>:<br />
<br />
a. In <i>The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War</i>, Gary D Solis provides an overview of the Rendulic Rule in evaluation of the subjective test in evaluating a defence of Military Necessity: <br />
<br />
b. “In October 1944, Generaloberst Lothar Rendulic was Armed Forces Commander North, which included command of Nazi Forces in Norway. (Between World Wars I and II, Rendulic had practiced law in his native Austria.) Following World War II, he was prosecuted for, among other charges, issuing an order “for the complete destruction of all shelter and means of existence in, and the total evacuation of the entire civilian population of the northern Norwegian province of Finmark...” Entire villages were destroyed, bridges and highways bombed, and port installations wrecked. Tried by an American military commission, Rendulic's defence was military necessity. He presented evidence that the Norwegian population would not voluntarily evacuate and that rapidly approaching Russian forces would use existing housing as shelter and exploit the local population's knowledge of the area to the detriment of retreating German forces. The Tribunal acquitted Rendulic of the charge, finding reasonable his belief that military necessity mandated his orders. His case offers one of the few adjudicated views of what constitutes military necessity.<br />
<br />
c. <i>From the Tribunals opinion</i>:<br />
<br />
d. “Military necessity has been invoked by the defendant's as justifying.. the destruction of villages and towns in an occupied territory... The destruction of property to be lawful must be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war... There must be some reasonable connection between the destruction of property and the overcoming of the enemy forces. It is lawful to destroy railways, lines of communication, or any other property that might be utilized by the enemy. Private homes and churches even may be destroyed if necessary for military operations. It does not admit the wanton devastation of a district or the wilful infliction of suffering upon its inhabitants for the sake of suffering alone...<br />
<br />
e. “The evidence shows that the Russians had very excellent troops in pursuit of the Germans. Two or three land routes were open to them as well as landings by sea behind German lines... The information obtained concerning the intentions of the Russians was limited.. It was with this situation confronting him that he carried out the "scorched earth" policy in the Norwegian province of Finmark.. The destruction was as complete as an efficient army could do it...<br />
<br />
f. “There is evidence in the record that there was no military necessity for this destruction and devastation. An examination of the facts in retrospect can well sustain this conclusion. But we are obliged to judge the situation as it appeared to the defendant at the time. If the facts were such as would justify the action by the exercise of judgement, after giving consideration to all the factors and existing possibilities, even though the conclusion reached may have been faulty, it cannot be said to be criminal. After giving careful consideration to all the evidence on the subject, we are convinced that the defendant cannot be held criminally responsible although when viewed in retrospect, the danger did not actually exist....<br />
<br />
g. “..... We are not called upon to determine whether urgent military necessity for the devastation and destruction in the province of Finmark actually existed. We are concerned with the question whether the defendant at the time of its occurrence acted within the limits of honest judgement on the basis of the conditions prevailing at the time. The course of a military operation by the enemy is loaded with uncertainties... It is our considered opinion that the conditions, as they appeared to the defendant at the time, were sufficient upon which he could honestly conclude that urgent military necessity warranted the decision made. This being true, the defendant may have erred in the exercise of his judgement but he was guilty of no criminal act. We find the defendant not guilty of the charge. <br />
<br />
h. The Rendulic standard remains unchanged. Fifty-four years later, in 2003, the ICTY wrote: “In determining whether an attack was proportionate it is necessary to examine whether a reasonably well-informed person in the circumstances of the actual perpetrator, making reasonable use of the information available to him or her, could have expected excessive civilian casualties to result from the attack.” <br />
<br />
Q. <i><b>Military Necessity: Rendulic Rule: Subjective Honesty in current Military Doctrine</b></i>:<br />
<br />
a. In <i>Unexpected Consequences From Knock-On Effects: A Different Standard for Computer Network Operations?</i> , Eric Talbot Jensen writes:<br />
<br />
b. “The standard the Court held General Rendulic to was the requirement to give "consideration to all factors and existing possibilities" as they "appeared to the defendant at the time."”<br />
<br />
c. “Note that the requirement to give consideration to all factors and existing possibilities is balanced with the overarching constraint of taking facts as they appear at the time of the decision. Must the commander remain in inaction until he feels he has turned over every stone in search of that last shred of information concerning all factors and possibilities that might affect his decision? The answer must be "no." Instead, he must act in good faith and, in accordance with GPI, do everything feasible to get this information.”<br />
<br />
R. <i><b>Onus of Proof: Norwegian State or Breivik to Prove Necessity?</b></i>:<br />
<br />
a. In South African law the Onus of Proof lies on the State in a defence of necessity, to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity.<br />
<br />
b. In <i>S v Pretorius</i> 1975 (2) SA 85 (SWA) Judge AJ Le Grange found that “The onus of proof in a defence of necessity as in self-defence rests on the State to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity. It is not for the accused to satisfy the court that she acted from necessity (p 293). .. (proceed) by gathering an objective view of the circumstances from the evidence itself, and the magistrate‘s finding whether the prevailing circumstances were “alarming” if viewed objectively…. Viewed objectively… was the accused confronted with a situation that …… lives were in danger….<br />
<br />
c. “[90] [If the evidence gives a picture of threatening danger and fear, which gave rise to necessity and which would have justified the accused‘s conduct, provided the accused did not exceed the limits of necessity…. Proceed to consider whether the proven circumstances satisfy the tests for necessity set out by B & Hunt at p. 285 of their work: (a) the threatening disaster endangered the accused‘s legal interests. This in fact gave rise to a duty to act. (b) the danger was threatening and imminent. The fact that symptoms relating to the danger may only appear later does not detract from the situation… if it cannot immediately be ascertained whether or not the symptoms are dangerous, necessity arises… (d) the chances that harm would have resulted and it would have been of a serious nature.. the greater the harm, the greater the necessity…”<br />
<br />
d. If Norwegian law also places the Onus of Proof to lie on the State in a defence of necessity, to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity; it would appear that the Prosecutor‘s decision to “refuse to touch the principle of necessity” should weigh heavily in the Defendant‘s favour.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>14.28 28 August – 06 September 2012: No Response from the Norwegian Supreme Court:</b><br />
<br />
A. On 28 August 2012, I contacted the Supreme Court Registrar with a request for a Case Number for my application for Review of the Oslo District Court’s Brievik Judgement.<br />
<br />
B. On 31 August 2012, I again contacted the Supreme Court Registrar with a request for a Case Number for my application for Review of the Oslo District Court’s Brievik Judgement.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>14.29 02 September 2012: Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing by Supreme Court Registrar:</b><br />
<br />
A. On 02 September 2012, I submitted a complaint (PDF ) to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing / Failure to Provide Case Processing by Supreme Court Registrar; to Application for Review of ‘Breivik Judgement’. <br />
<br />
B. 10 September 2012: Response from Supreme Court Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby: No Legal Standing:<br />
<br />
a. On 11 September 2012, I was informed of the decision by Supreme Court of Norway: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby in: Application for review of Oslo District Court Judgement of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24).<br />
<br />
b. Secretary General Bergby implied that my application was an ‘Appeal’, and stated that I lacked legal standing, because I was not a ‘party to the case’. Mr. Anders Behring Breivik and the prosecution authority “are the only parties in the specific case mentioned above, and the right of appeal is constricted to these”. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>14.30 11 Sep 2012: Response to Supreme Court: Secretary General:</b><br />
<br />
A. On 11 September 2012, applicant responded (PDF ) to Secretary General Gunnar Bergby. Applicant requested the Secretary General to provide her with the relevant statute in Norway that provides the Secretary General the authority to refuse to process a case, citing lack of locus standi/legal standing; thereby denying such applicant due process access to be heard by an impartial court? <br />
<br />
B. Applicant argued that it was for the court to decide the matter of locus standi, not the Secretary General; citing Scottish Salmon Growers Association Limited v. EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-2/94); Private Barnehagers Landsforbund v EFTA Surveillance Authority, supported by Kingdom of Norway (Case E-5/07) ; and Hans Chr. Bugge, Professor of Environmental Law at the Department of Public and International Law, University of Oslo, in his article: General background: Legal remedies and locus standi in Norwegian law : “There is no clear definition or delimitation of the concept. Whether a person has "legal interest" is decided discretionary in each case, and depends on individual circumstances.”<br />
<br />
C. Applicant clarified her application was not an ‘Appeal’, which ‘locus standi’ was restricted to the ‘parties in the specific case’, but one of Certiorari/Review, where her locus standi/legal standing was based upon her being a member of a group of activists: known as political necessity activists, who have ‘legal interest’ in the judgement, due to its violations of ECHR Article 13 and 14, and its necessity ruling was not sufficiently precise, as required in Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom , in order to allow Political Necessity Activists to regulate their activism in accordance with the law. <br />
<br />
D. The Oslo District Courts ‘Breivik Judgement’, discriminated against Breivik, by denying him a Free and Fair Subjective and Objective Test Enquiry into his Necessity evidence; and set a discriminatory legal precedent against future Norwegian Political Necessity activists, and furthermore due to the international prominence of the trial on the world stage, the Judgement sent a publicity message that a Court could deny an Accused pleading to Necessity, a Free and Fair Subjective and Objective Test Enquiry into their Necessity evidence, on the world stage. <br />
<br />
E. Denying Mr. Breivik his right to an objective and subjective test of his necessity evidence, set a legal precedent where environmental, immigrant, religious or other necessity activists are also denied their right to an objective and subjective examination of their necessity evidence (or can due to ignorance from the Breivik trial’s publicity, deny themselves, by lacking the knowledge to assert their right thereto).<br />
<br />
F. Applicants was consequently demanding her Article 13 Right to an Effective Remedy, and in terms of Article 14: to Prohibit this Discriminatory Erroneous Necessity Ruling against Breivik, herself and other Necessity Activists.<br />
<br />
G. The applicant confirmed that the principle of an Application for Review existed in Norwegian courts, as documented by (1) Former President of Norwegian Supreme Court Justice Carsten Smith , (2) Chief Justice of the Norway Supreme Court: Tore Schei ; and (3) Supreme Court Justice: Karen Bruzelius .<br />
<br />
H. Applicant requested that her Application be interpreted in terms of Article 13 ECHR read in conjunction with Protocol 7 ECHR and the EFTA Courts Judicial Review Posten Norge Judgement ; effectively interpreted as the Right to Judicial Review of an Administrative Decision or a Court Order.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>14.31 08 October 2012, 2nd Request to Secretary General Gunnar Bergby:</b><br />
<br />
A. Applicant sent a reminder request to Secretary General Bergby.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>14.32 03 November 2012: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Complaint of Supreme Crt Registrar Slow Case Processing:</b><br />
<br />
A. On 03 November 2012, applicant filed a complaint (PDF ) of Slow Case Processing by Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby.<br />
<br />
14.33 15 November 2012: Parliamentary Ombudsman Rules that Norway Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby’s ‘Administrative Decision’ is a “Decision of a Court of Law’:<br />
<br />
A. On 15 November 2012, the Parliamentary Ombudsman responded to Complaint on Supreme Court of Norway (PDF ), declining to investigate it, because “the Storting's Ombudsman for Public Administration, section 4, first paragraph, litra c), decisions of the courts of law can not be handled by the Ombudsman”. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>14.34 Contradictions between Parliamentary Ombudsman’s “Slow Case Processing” by Courts Administrative Officials of (a) 11 July 2012 Supervisory Committee for Judges: Secretariat: Espen Eiken, and (b) 15 November 2012: Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby.</b><br />
<br />
A. In the 11 July 2012 Parliamentary Ombudsman ruling: Lack of Response from the Supervisory Committee for Judges; in response to a complaint of Slow case processing from the Supervisory Committee for Judges, the Ombudsman’s directions were to “submit "a written request to Tilsynsutvalget for dommere, where you call for answers to your applications. If you do not receive a response to this request within a reasonable time, you can contact the Ombudsman, with an enclosed copy of the last request to Tilsynsutvalget for dommere."”<br />
<br />
B. The Parliamentary Ombudsman clearly believed they had the authority to require the Supreme Court Administration: Supervisory Committee for Judges: Secretariat, to provide the applicant with due process, processing of her complaints against Judges Opsahl, Arntzen and Schei. <br />
<br />
C. In the 15 November 2012 the Parliamentary Ombudsman responded to Complaint on Supreme Court of Norway; in response to a complaint of “Slow Case Processing by Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby: Re: Request for Statute Granting Sec Gen Authority to make ruling on Legal Standing”; the Ombudsman’s directions are that “decisions of the courts of law can not be handled by the Ombudsman.”<br />
<br />
D. Here the Parliamentary Ombudsman, chose to interpret the erroneous ‘locus standi’ administrative decision by Secretary General Gunnar Bergby, as a “decision of a court of law”, and hence to deny themselves the authority to require Secretary General Gunnar Bergby to provide Applicant with a response to her question requesting the Statute granting a Secretary General the authority to make a ruling on legal standing. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">III. Statement of alleged violation(s) of the Convention and/or Protocols and of relevant arguments</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
15.1 <i><b>Discrimination: Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement</b></i>: <br />
<br />
15.2 The Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement Ruling, by Judge’s Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Arne Lyng; and Lay Judges Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff, delivered on 24 August 2012, violates Article 14 Prohibition of Discrimination and Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial. <br />
<br />
15.3 The Necessity ruling states that necessity statutes ‘prohibit the killing of government or politically active young people’; irrespective of the fact that:<br />
<br />
A. No reference was made during court proceedings by any party alleging that any Norwegian or International specific necessity criminal statute specifically prohibits the killing of government or politically active young people, in the event of objective and subjective reasonably determined necessity; and <br />
<br />
B. The Necessity Judgement ruling fails to cite any International or Norwegian specific necessity criminal statute specifically prohibiting the killing of government or politically active young people, in the event of objective and subjective reasonably determined necessity.<br />
<br />
C. Necessity criminal statutes do not specifically allow or disallow the killing of government or politically active young people, but provide for an objective and subjective test that examines each alleged criminal act to objectively and subjectively determine whether necessity existed, or the defendant honestly believed it existed, within the particular criminal act‘s relevant circumstances.<br />
<br />
14.35 The Necessity Judgement endorses the court, prosecution and defence counsel failure to conduct the required subjective and objective tests to examine the evidence for the Defendant‘s necessity motivations to determine (I) objectively whether the defendant‘s Necessity claims – simplistically rephrased as – “Titanic Europe is on a demographic/immigration collision course with Islam Iceberg” were reasonable; and (II) secondly whether the defendant subjectively sincerely perceived the Titanic Europe/Islam Iceberg circumstances this way, in accordance to the Military Necessity Rendulic Rule.<br />
<br />
14.36 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? If the proof in a defense of necessity, ruling out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity, lies on the State, and the State failed to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity, the accused claim of necessity stands.<br />
<br />
14.37 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 for its “necessity finding of guilt”, are inadequate. Hence the finding of guilt needs to be set aside for further evidence to objectively and subjective evaluate the defendants necessity defence.<br />
<br />
14.38 Finally if the Courts statement of reasons remain uncorrected, they would set a bad precedent, encouraging other courts to deny necessity defendants their rights to an objective and subjective test of their necessity defence, including denying the defendant information clarifying upon whom the Onus of Proof in a defence of necessity lies.<br />
<br />
14.39 The discriminatory ‘Necessity ruling’, in response to Prosecutor Engh and Holden’s refusal to “touch Breivik’s Principle of Necessity” sets a Norwegian legal precedent, which if upheld will set a legal precedent denying future necessity activists, a right to a fair trial, since it is based on two unequivocal legal falsehoods: (a) necessity activists have no right to an objective and subjective enquiry into their necessity defense evidence; and (b) necessity statutory provisions prohibit the killing of government officials or civilians.<br />
<br />
14.40 The Necessity ruling, also sets an international intellectual and psychological precedent, due to the international publicity it received, by publicizing these legal ‘Necessity’ trial falsehoods, as allegedly true and correct, and thereby educating citizens and future necessity activists that (a) they have no right to an objective and subjective enquiry into their necessity defense evidence; and (b) necessity statutory provisions prohibit the killing of government officials or civilians.<br />
<br />
14.41 The Necessity ruling – particularly as a result of the international uncritical publicity it received -- creates confusion and obfuscation by contradicting all other necessity precedents, but providing no legal precedent justifications for its conclusions; thereby the most well known necessity precedent for the average layperson, is the one based upon falsehoods and totally lacking in legal justifications. This is a violation of the Right to an Effective: clear, succinct, legally justified precedent, to enable laypersons and necessity activists to respectively effectively understand, plan and regulate their activism in accordance with the law.<br />
<br />
15.4 <i><b>Denied Right to an Effective Remedy by Supreme Court Sec. Gen. Bergby</b></i>:<br />
<br />
15.5 The 10 September 2012 administrative decision of Norway Supreme Court Secretary General Gunnar Bergby, denying Applicant Access to Court by refusing to process her 27 August 2012, Application for Review of the Oslo District Court: ‘Breivik Judgement were violations of applicants right to an Effective Remedy.<br />
<br />
15.6 Secretary General Bergby’s refusal to process my Application for Review, in the absence of a due process impartial enquiry into the merits of the application; by (1) pretending not to understand the difference between an Appeal and a Review, and (2) pretending that I had no locus standi (legal standing) to file an Application for Review, while refusing to provide me with the relevant Norwegian statute that provides the Secretary General the authority to refuse to process a case, citing lack of locus standi/legal standing; thereby denying such applicant due process access to be heard by an impartial court were violations of applicants right to an Effective Remedy.<br />
<br />
15.7 <i><b>Discrimination by Supreme Court Sec Gen. Bergby</b></i>: <br />
<br />
15.8 Secretary General Gunnar Bergby’s decisions and actions to refuse to process Applicants Application for Review, denying Applicant her right to an effective remedy to address the errors and irregularities regarding the Courts ‘Necessity’ judgement, were motivated acts of ideological discrimination against the ‘right wing’ or ‘cultural conservatives’, and against anyone – particularly anyone who is not ‘right wing’ -- who opposes, or objects to Ideological Discrimination against anyone, including Cultural Conservatives.<br />
<br />
15.9 Everyone, irrespective of their extreme left or extreme right ideology, who pleads to necessity should be entitled to an objective and subjective test of their respective necessity evidence. It is blatant discrimination for a Prosecutor and a Judge to publicly endorse the denial of a ‘right wing’ accused’s ‘necessity’ evidence to be subjectively and objectively examined. <br />
<br />
15.10 When a court sets such a discriminatory irregular and erroneous legal precedent, such a precedent can be used to deny other necessity activists their due process rights to an objective and subjective test of their necessity evidence. <br />
<br />
15.11 I subsequently filed a Complaint of Slow Case Processing to the Parliamentary Ombudsman<br />
<br />
15.12 <i><b>Denied Right to an Effective Remedy by Parliamentary Ombudsman</b></i>:<br />
<br />
15.13 The 15 November 2012 ruling by Parliamentary Ombudsman, that Secretary General’s Gunnar Bergby’s administrative decision denying Applicant’s access to the court and an effective remedy, was an official ‘judgement/decision by a court of law’, was a violations of applicants right to an Effective Remedy.<br />
<br />
15.14 Secretary General Bergby’s 10 September 2012 administrative decision to refuse to process Applicants application, due to alleged lack of ‘locus standi’; and subsequent refusal to provide any statutory authority granting him the right to deny applicant access to a court for a full due process impartial enquiry into the merits of her legal standing; was made without a full impartial due process enquiry into the merits of the application, therefore denying applicant an effective remedy to her application. <br />
<br />
15.15 The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s decision to refuse to order Secretary General Bergby to either (a) process applicants application, or (b) provide applicant with the relevant statutory authority granting him the authority to deny applicants application based upon an un-investigated allegation of lack of legal standing; denies applicant access to a court, and an effective remedy to impartially determine (a) the status of applicants legal standing, and if so (b) her allegations of irregularity regarding the Oslo Courts ‘Necessity’ judgement. <br />
<br />
15.16 <i><b>Discrimination by Parliamentary Ombudsman</b></i>:<br />
<br />
15.17 The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s (a) ruling of 11 July 2012, in the complaint of ‘Slow Case Processing’ by Courts Administration Official: Supervisory Committee for Judges: Secretariat: Espen Eiken, contradicts the (b) ruling of 15 November 2012, in the complaint of ‘Slow Case Processing’ by Courts Administration Official: Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby.<br />
<br />
15.18 In the 11 July 2012 Parliamentary Ombudsman ruling they believed they had the authority to remedy slow case processing administrative decision making by the Supreme Court Administration: Supervisory Committee for Judges: Secretariat, yet in the 15 November 2012 the Parliamentary Ombudsman ruling they now believed that they did not have the authority to remedy slow case processing administrative decision making by the Supreme Court Administration.<br />
<br />
15.19 It is alleged the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s 15 November 2012 decision to refuse to address Applicants Slow Case Processing complaint by ordering Director General Bergby to either (a) process applicants application, or (b) provide applicant with the relevant statutory authority granting him the authority to deny applicants application based upon an un-investigated allegation of lack of legal standing; were motivated acts of ideological discrimination against the ‘right wing’ or ‘cultural conservatives’, and against anyone – particularly anyone who is not ‘right wing’ -- who opposes, or objects to Ideological Discrimination against anyone, including Cultural Conservatives.<br />
<br />
15.20 <i><b>Prohibition of Discrimination: Motive for Denial of Effective Remedy’s: Political & Ideological Discrimination</b></i>:<br />
<br />
15.21 Applicant asserts that Supreme Court, Deputy Secretary General Nygaard, Secretary General Bergby, the Supervisory Committee for Judges and the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s legal gymnastics decision-making are motivated by either their (A) own personal Liberal/Left Wing prejudice towards Breivik / right wing cultural conservatives, as alleged by Breivik, (B) their -- lack of intellectual backbone - inability to withstand Liberal/Left Wing Politically Correct Peer Pressure endorsing political, media, and legal discrimination against right wing conservatives, and anyone who speaks up for the rights of extreme right wing conservatives (Norway, Pakistan, India, Malaysia and South Korea are culturally the strictest conformists, with the least resistance to cultural and political or ideological peer pressure ). <br />
<br />
15.22 It is possible their discriminatory decision-making towards denying Applicant the ability to support the rule of law and a free and fair trial for a right wing conservative terrorist, are a result of their paranoid fear of impartially objectively and subjective investigating the evidence of Breivik’s necessity defense, (a) fearing that some of Breivik’s allegations may in fact be found to be factually correct; and/or (b) their knowledge that some of Breivik’s allegations are in fact factually correct, and/or (c) their conformist inability to resist the Norwegian Politically Correct narrative, and (d) hence the need to obediently conform and deny any investigation of Breivik’s allegations, which would expose these realities.<br />
<br />
15.23 If Norwegian Officials sincerely believed that Breivik’s Resist Eurabia ideology, discrimination against, and censorship of cultural conservatives allegations were an absolute bunch of nonsense, totally and utterly without any factual basis, their would be no need to fear an objective and subjective test of Breivik’s necessity defense evidence, since it would be exposed as erroneous and unjustified.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">V. Statement of the object of the application</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
[19.] <b>The Oslo District Courts 24 August 2012 Breivik Judgement Discriminatory Necessity ruling</b>:<br />
<br />
19.1 sets a Norwegian legal precedent, which if upheld will set a legal precedent denying future necessity activists, a right to a fair trial, since it is based on two unequivocal legal falsehoods: (a) necessity activists have no right to an objective and subjective enquiry into their necessity defense evidence; and (b) necessity statutory provisions prohibit the killing of government officials or civilians.<br />
<br />
19.2 creates confusion and obfuscation by contradicting all other International legally justified necessity precedents, but providing no legal precedent justifications for its conclusions – as a result of the international uncritical publicity it received -- therefore the most well known Internationally necessity precedent for the average layperson, is the one based upon falsehoods and totally lacking in legal justifications. <br />
<br />
19.3 sets an international intellectual and psychological Discriminatory precedent against all Political Necessity activists, due to the uncritical international publicity it received, by publicizing these legal ‘Necessity’ trial falsehoods, as allegedly true and correct, and thereby implying that necessity activists of any ideological, political, religious or cultural persuasion (a) have no right to an objective and subjective enquiry into their necessity defense evidence; and (b) and if, or where such necessity actions involve the killing of government officials or civilians, that International Human Rights law necessity statutory provisions prohibit the killing of government officials or civilians.<br />
<br />
19.4 The Norwegian Necessity Judgement – and its international publicity – discriminates against Necessity Activists, by denying them the Right to an Effective: clear, succinct, legally justified precedent, to enable laypersons and necessity activists to respectively effectively understand, plan and regulate their Necessity activism in accordance with accurate necessity jurisprudence .<br />
<br />
19.5 Consequently, Applicant requests the following Declaratory Orders Relief: <br />
<br />
19.6 The Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement Necessity Ruling , by Judge’s Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Arne Lyng; and Lay Judges Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff, delivered on 24 August 2012, violates Article 14 Prohibition of Discrimination and Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial, and consequently to: <br />
<br />
A. Set Aside the Judgements Discriminatory Irregular ‘Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling’ (pg.67 ) for (i) failing to provide any necessity criminal provisions that prohibit killing of Government Officials in case of Necessity; (ii) Erroneous interpretation of Necessity related criminal law provisions and international necessity related human rights law, (iii) Failure to conduct the required Objective and Subjective Tests of Defendant’s Necessity Defence evidence, renders it a (iv) Discriminatory Necessity Precedent for other Necessity activists to be denied the required Objective and Subjective tests of their necessity evidence, (v) Failure to Clarify upon which party the Onus of Proof lies in a Case of Necessity; and how or why their evidence was sufficient/insufficient; and (vi) ‘Extreme Political objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the absence of an objective and subjective necessity test of the defendants necessity evidence. <br />
<br />
B. Set Aside Defendant’s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) for remittance to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry.<br />
<br />
C. Alternatively, a Non-Precedent Setting Ruling: If Defendant Breivik prefers to abide by, and socio-politically profit from (as a political martyr), the Oslo District Courts discriminatory Necessity ruling against him, a declaratory order that the Defendant’s failure to uphold his demand that the court objectively and subjectively test his necessity defence evidence, that the Oslo courts discriminatory ‘Necessity Ruling’ is not to be deemed ‘Necessity precedent’, whereby other political activists can be denied their necessity rights for a court to objectively and subjectively test their necessity evidence.<br />
<br />
D. Furthermore, the (i) 10 September 2012, administrative decision of Norway Supreme Court Secretary General Gunnar Bergby, denying Applicant Access to Court by refusing to process her 27 August 2012, Application for Review of the Oslo District Court: ‘Breivik Judgement’; and (ii) the 15 November 2012 ruling by Parliamentary Ombudsman, that Secretary General’s Gunnar Bergby’s administrative decision, was a ‘judgement/decision by a court of law’, thereby justifying his refusal to order Secretary General Bergby to process Applicants Application for Review; were (iii) violations of applicants right to an Effective Remedy and an obstruction to the execution of a final judicial decision on the merits of her application, and (iv) were motivated by ideological prejudice towards people who are ‘right wing’, and/or against anyone – particularly anyone who is not ‘right wing’ -- who opposes, or objects to Ideological Discrimination against anyone, including Cultural Conservatives.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [Excerpts from <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/eu-court-human-rights.html">ECHR: Johnstone v Norway</a> :: <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/10-jan-13-application.html">Application</a>]</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-86066531046491312212012-12-27T06:30:00.000-08:002013-02-05T06:32:53.676-08:00Parl Ombud rules Supreme Court 'admin decision', re Review of Breivik Judgement is an Official Court Judgement <div align="justify"><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Parliamentary Ombudsman rules Supreme Court Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby's 10 September 'admin decision' re: Review of Breivik Judgement; is an Official Court Judgement </span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;"></span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">27 December 2012 | EcoFeminist v. Breivik</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRojnCH8tr7AqwiVgl3Mvw-GxtSoaLJEwtsi3pdorqw7NncRbDg-1Fv7SZ6RDsvQv8ZRGBQd61YiXFu8qBS1NRuahhkNi4CbIAbdMBOGwjtyks85bHHJW8KtqQ8g-n9u4TOs5J4Ks5J1s/s1600/PO_SupremeCrtReview-BreivikJudgement_370x395.PNG"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRojnCH8tr7AqwiVgl3Mvw-GxtSoaLJEwtsi3pdorqw7NncRbDg-1Fv7SZ6RDsvQv8ZRGBQd61YiXFu8qBS1NRuahhkNi4CbIAbdMBOGwjtyks85bHHJW8KtqQ8g-n9u4TOs5J4Ks5J1s/s1600/PO_SupremeCrtReview-BreivikJudgement_370x395.PNG" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 370px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 395px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 95%;">On 27 August 2012, I filed an Application (<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-08-27_no-breivik_supremecrt_review_fs-nom-affid-pos.pdf">PDF</a>) 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.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court Registrar refused to respond to my application, so i filed a complaint of Slow Processing (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120902_po-scr?mode=window&viewMode=singlePage">PDF</a>) to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on 02 September 2012. On 10 September 2012, Supreme Court Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby responded - (<i><a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/09/120910_nsc-gbergby.html">Application for review of Oslo District Court Judgement of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24)</a></i>. He implied my application was an 'appeal', and that I lacked legal standing (locus standi), because only the 'parties to the case' can appeal. <br />
<br />
</span></blockquote><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFYtnKek3_bDG25yHAo7p1NapxcVL-77UFa6NAlzkcbbEZy1PIFu1Bz2XyCUWl1L22W6Siep-PMJy4rhBbSg0dGFgSMSD08uoSFLPOvE2iMbDhil6ip_YXzYlk7wABf56hyJyNBS8YZE4/s1600/12-11-15_2012-1943_Supreme+Court+of+Norway_600x821.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXa2g-X7q-SRwhULNW-Ch_qQ1UZcSPq8U_Xj6VJdjDznRGbPWkwxDLR0ArnrMfVyJoT8-Cud7fThXkqjU8MSIFvGGGaBStyosS0p2D5yT26EvAFOgRp2YKrGj0Fj8GdOR82H8tjlLx5p0/s1600/12-11-15_2012-1943_Supreme+Court+of+Norway_350x479.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 479px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 350px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 95%;">On 11 September 2012, I responded (<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-09-11_resp_nsc_secgen_gunnarbergby_decision-dated-09-09-12_encl.pdf">PDF</a>) that my application was not an appeal, but a Review, and furthermore, that matters of locus standi are investigated by courts, after hearing evidence on the matter, not by Registrars. I requested him to provide me with a statute that granted him the authority to make a ruling on legal standing (locus standi); thereby denyiing me access to the court. <br />
<br />
On 08 October 2012, I sent a reminder request to Sec. Gen. Bergby, but received no response. On 03 November I filed another complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: <i>Complaint of Supreme Crt Registrar Slow Case Processing</i> (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121103_po-nsc">PDF</a>), requesting the Parliamentary Ombudsman order Sec. Gen. Bergby to either (a) provide me with the relevant statute granting him the authority to make a ruling on legal standing, or (b) process my application for review of the Breivik judgement.<br />
<br />
On 15 November, the Parliamentary Ombudsman ruled that Sec. Gen. Bergby's 'administrative decision' was not an 'administrative decision', but a 'Decision (Judgement) by a court of law'; and that the Parliamentary Ombudsman has no authority to investigate 'decisions by a court of law', only administrative decisions of slow case processing. <br />
<br />
So, the Parliamentary Ombudsman is saying that if you file an application with a court, and the registrar makes some administrative decision about your application, that is a 'judgement by a court of law'. Very strange, cause 'judgements/decisions by a court of law', only occur after a court has heard all the relevant evidence in the matter, from all parties. <br />
<br />
So, it appears that the Parliamentary Ombudsman is not willing to rock the boat, and do their job by ordering the Supreme Court Secretary General, to either provide the relevant statute granting him the authority to make a decision on locus standi, or to process my application.<br />
<br />
This means however, that an Application can be filed with the European Court of Human Rights, since the highest Norwegian court (Supreme Court) has issued a judgement (without general due process procedures), on my Application for Review.</span></blockquote><a name='more'></a><div align="center"><a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJZPj_1SWXWvyLlmRAgy0CECpSqhbfzctqlXhs97tHB4maoYbOMEvkQ9wg8GGeJtrggM9CDTSYcuf0w6P8PMn3xY-0nr91BulyjINw0y0Hspz-SGwc5NgHa1VtgcBwZpc3PRRkdJ8Mrs/s1600/NorwayVBreivik_FleurdeLis_MargaretHagen_556x119.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div><br />
<blockquote><br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">27 August 2012: Application to Norway Supreme Court, for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement ruling of 24 August:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
A. On 27 August 2012, an Application (<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-08-27_no-breivik_supremecrt_review_fs-nom-affid-pos.pdf">PDF</a>) was 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.<br />
<br />
B. <i>Review Orders Requested</i>: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>a. Set Aside the Judgements <a href="http://www.lovdata.no/nyhet/dok/toslo-2011-188627-24e.pdf">‘Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling’</a> (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120824_nvb-judmnt">pg.67</a>) <br />
<br />
b. 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.</blockquote><br />
C. <i>Grounds for Review</i>: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>a. 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 .<br />
<br />
b. [A.1.a] Necessity Judgement fails to provide any necessity criminal provisions that prohibit killing of Government Officials in case of Necessity <br />
<br />
c. [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.<br />
<br />
d. [A.1.c] Necessity Judgement’s Erroneous interpretation of Necessity related criminal law provisions and international necessity related human rights law.<br />
<br />
e. [A.1.d] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Failure to conduct required Objective and Subjective Tests for Defendant’s Necessity Defence<br />
<br />
f. [A.1.e] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Inadequate<br />
<br />
g. [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.<br />
<br />
h. [A.1.g] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Discriminatory Precedent<br />
<br />
i. [A.1.h] Necessity Judgements ‘Extreme Political Objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test<br />
<br />
j. [A.1.i] Necessity Judgements ‘Extreme Political Objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test</blockquote><br />
D. <i>Failure of Justice: Judicially Un-Investigated Facts: Necessity and Guilt</i>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>a. No reference was made during court proceedings by any party alleging that any Norwegian or International specific necessity criminal statute specifically prohibits the killing of government or politically active young people, in the event of objective and subjective reasonably determined necessity.<br />
<br />
b. No International or Norwegian specific necessity criminal statute specifically prohibits the killing of government or politically active young people, in the event of objective and subjective reasonably determined necessity.<br />
<br />
c. Necessity criminal statutes do not specifically allow or disallow the killing of government or politically active young people, but provide for an objective and subjective test that examines each alleged criminal act to objectively and subjectively determine whether necessity existed, or the defendant honestly believed it existed, within the particular criminal act‘s relevant circumstances.<br />
<br />
d. The court, prosecution and defence counsel failed to conduct the required subjective and objective tests to examine the evidence for the Defendant‘s necessity motivations 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.<br />
<br />
e. 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.<br />
<br />
f. 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 for its “necessity finding of guilt”, are inadequate. Hence the finding of guilt needs to be set aside for further evidence to objectively and subjective evaluate the defendants necessity defence.<br />
<br />
g. Finally if the Courts statement of reasons remain uncorrected, they would set a bad precedent, encouraging other courts to deny necessity defendants their rights to an objective and subjective test of their necessity defence, including denying the defendant information clarifying upon whom the Onus of Proof in a defence of necessity lies.</blockquote><br />
E. <i>Oslo Court: Breivik Defence of Necessity</i>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>a. On 17 April 2012, the Oslo Court <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/Oslotingrett/status/192198581803945984">tweeted</a> to Journalists attending the Breivik trial: “Wrong translation in the 22-7 trial yesterday: Breivik said "nodrett", Correct translation: "Principle of Necessity", not "self defence".”<br />
<br />
b. The principle of Necessity is enshrined in Norwegian Law in Section 47 of the <a href="http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/lov-19020522-010-eng.pdf">Penal Code</a>: "No person may be punished for any act that he has committed in order to save someone's person or property from an otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the damage that might be caused by his act."</blockquote><br />
F. <i>Prosecutor Engh and Holden “Refuse to touch Breivik’s Principle of Necessity”</i>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>a. According to <a href="http://www.document.no/2012/06/inga-bejer-engh-prosedyre-del-i/">Document.NO</a>, <a href="http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/rettssaken---dag-42-1.8216159">NRK</a>, <a href="http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/22-juli/rettssaken/artikkel.php?artid=10066042">VG</a>, <a href="http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/rettssaken---dag-43-1.8218343">NRK</a>, the transcripts Prosecutor Engh and Holden violated their duty of objectivity in terms of (a) impartially enquiring into and/or responding to the Accuseds‘ Defence; and (b) providing the court with the Prosecution‘s evaluation and conclusion of the evidence for and against Breivik‘s invocation of his Necessity Defence.<br />
<br />
b. In her closing statement, Prosecutor Engh acknowledges that: (A) Norwegian prosecutors have a duty to conduct their investigation with objectivity; (B) Norwegian law allows for an accused to plead to necessity and/or self defence, (C) Where an accused does invoke necessity, it is the court and prosecutor‘s duty to investigate the accused‘s necessity defence arguments and evidence; (D) If an accused successfully invokes a necessity defence, this can and must result in either mitigation of sentence and/or a verdict of innocence; (E) Breivik invoked the defence of necessity; (F) Despite the fact that Breivik invoked the necessity defence, both Prosecutor Engh and Holden “refuse to touch the principle of necessity”.</blockquote><br />
G. <i>Necessity in Norwegian Law</i>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>a. LAW-2005-05-20-28: <a href="http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-20050520-028.html">Lov om straff (straffeloven)</a>. | <a href="http://www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/wiftldles?doc=/app/gratis/www/docroot/ltavd1/filer/nl-20050520-028.html&emne=n%F8drett*&#17">Act on Punishment (Penal Code)</a> says: § 17 Necessity: “An action that would otherwise be criminal, is legal when a) it is being undertaken to save lives, health, property or any interest from the danger of injury that can not be averted in any other reasonable manner, and b) the risk of injury is far greater than the risk of injury by the action.”<br />
<br />
b. LAW-1998-03-20-10-§ 5: <a href="http://www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/wiftldles?doc=/app/gratis/www/docroot/ltavd1/filer/nl-20050520-028.html&emne=n%F8drett*&#17">Forskrift om sikkerhetsadministrasjon</a> | Regulations relating to security management allows for “security breaches without criminal liability if the terms of the principle of necessity or self defence in criminal law law § 47 or § 48 is met.”</blockquote><br />
H. <i>Norwegian Law Necessity Judgement: Subjective and Objective Test</i>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>a. In <a href="https://www.udiregelverk.no/en/documents/court-decisions/le-2012-76983/">LE-2012-76983 Eidsivating Appeal – Judgment</a> of 29 May 2012, an Eritrean man was accused of several Perjury related Immigration offences to help his sister to come to Norway. He admitted the facts, but claimed necessity. In court he was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal suspended the appeal to test his conviction on one point (whether the court a quo had seriously enquired into his necessity defence).<br />
<br />
b. The court agreed with the Defendant‘s argument that asserted that the court a quo had not considered the circumstances that were invoked as the basis for the existence of a principle of necessity situation. The judgement stated that it is clear that “the courts statement of reasons does not show that the court has considered this argument. Thus it is also clear that the Court‘s statement of reasons in so far are inadequate.”</blockquote><br />
I. <i>Necessity Defence: International and Foreign Law</i>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>a. The rationale of the necessity defense is not that a person, when faced with the pressure of circumstances of nature, lacks the mental element which the crime in question requires. Rather, it is this reason of public policy: the law ought to promote the achievement of higher values at the expense of lesser values, and sometimes the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law. <br />
<br />
b. The principle of the necessity defence is rooted in common law and any accused pleading to necessity argues that their actions were justified or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants who plead to necessity – whether common law necessity, political necessity (civil disobedience) or military necessity - argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as being criminal, because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm.</blockquote><br />
J. As argued in <i><a href="https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=38+New+Eng.+L.+Rev.+3&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=3d9c645ad04b894b23683eae1c915c96">The Necessity Defense in Civil Disobedience Cases: Bring in the Jury</a></i>, by William P. Quigley:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>a. [..] The doctrine of necessity, with its inevitable weighing of choices of evil, holds that certain conduct, though it violates the law and produces harm, is justified because it averts a greater evil and hence produces a net social gain or benefit to society. <br />
<br />
b. Glanville Williams expressed the necessity doctrine this way: “[S]ome acts that would otherwise be wrong are rendered rightful by a good purpose, or by the necessity of choosing the lesser of two evils.” He offers this example: “Suppose that a dike threatens to give way, and the actor is faced with the choice of either making a breach in the dike, which he knows will result in one or two people being drowned, or doing nothing, in which case he knows that the dike will burst at another point involving a whole town in sudden destruction. In such a situation, where there is an unhappy choice between the destruction of one life and the destruction of many, utilitarian philosophy would certainly justify the actor in preferring the lesser evil.” </blockquote><br />
K. In <i><a href="http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1887&context=lawreview">Nuclear War, Citizen Intervention, and the Necessity Defense</a></i> , Robert Aldridge and Virginia Stark, document numerous cases of Common Law and Civil Disobedience Necessity Defence Cases which resulted in Innocence verdicts or severe Mitigation of Sentencing.<br />
<br />
L. <i>Common Law Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing</i>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>a. In <i>Regina v Dudley and Stephens</i> (1884) 14 QBD 273, three crew members and a cabin boy escaped a shipwreck to spend eighteen days on a boat, over 1,000 miles from land, with no water and only two one pound tins of turnips. After four days, they caught and ate a small turtle. That was the only food that they had eaten prior to the twentieth day of being lost at sea. Ultimately, two of the crew members killed the ailing cabin boy and “fed upon the body and blood of the boy for four days.” Four days later, they were rescued. Two of the men were charged with murder. The court found that the cabin boy would likely have died by the time they were rescued and that the crew members, but for their conduct, would probably have died as well. The Queen's Bench Division Judges held that the defendants were guilty of murder in killing the cabin boy and stated that their obvious necessity was no defence. The defendants were sentenced to death, but this was subsequently commuted to six months' imprisonment.<br />
<br />
b. In <i>Spakes v. State</i>, 913 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), the Texas Criminal Appeals Court allowed the jury to be instructed on the necessity defense before deliberating the verdict for an inmate whose three cellmates had planned an escape and threatened to slit his throat if he did not accompany them. The defendant inmate argued that because of the terribly violent crimes of which his cellmates had been convicted (one had bragged about chopping his girlfriend up with an ax), it was a necessity that he break the law, by accompanying them in their escape.<br />
<br />
c. In <i>United States v. Ashton</i>, 24 F. Cas. 873, 873-74 (C.C.D. Mass 1834) (No. 14,470), sailors prosecuted for mutiny were found not guilty, after arguing the necessity for their mutiny based upon the dangerously leaky ship and that this danger had been concealed from them until after they left port. Circuit Justice Story found them not guilty of mutiny.<br />
<br />
d. In <i>United States v. Holmes</i>, 26 F. Cas. 360 (E.D. Pa. 1842) (No. 15,383), Holmes was involved in a shipwreck, where the crew were charged with manslaughter for throwing sixteen passengers overboard in a frantic attempt to lighten a sinking lifeboat. The Prosecutor argued the passengers should be protected at all costs, whereas the Defence placed the jurors in the sinking lifeboat with the defendant. The Defendant was found guilty, but the jurors requested leniency, to which the court complied by sentencing the defendant to six months in prison and a fine of twenty dollars.<br />
<br />
e. In the 1919 Arizona decision of <i>State v. Wooten</i>, commonly referred to as the Bisbee Deportation case, Professor Morris describes the acquittal of a Sherrif based upon the “necessity” for committing Kidnapping.<br />
<br />
f. In <i>Surocco v. Geary</i>, 3 Cal. 69 (1853), a large fire threatened the unburned half of the then small town of San Francisco. A public officer ordered the destruction of houses to create a firebreak and was subsequently sued by one of the owners. On appeal, the California Supreme Court held that the action was proper because: “The right to destroy property, to prevent the spread of a conflagration, has been traced to the highest law of necessity, and the natural rights of man, independent of society and the civil government. "It is referred by moralists and jurists as the same great principle which justifies the exclusive appropriation of a plank in a shipwreck, though the life of another be sacrificed; with the throwing overboard goods in a tempest, for the safety of the vessel; with the trespassing upon the lands of another, to escape death by an enemy. It rests upon the maxim, Necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura private." [Necessity leads to privileges because of private justice].”</blockquote><br />
M. <i>Civil Disobedience Political Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing</i>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>a. In the United States, 23 cases of left wing/liberal political protestors necessity defence cases have resulted in innocence or severe mitigation of sentencing, whereas only 1 case of right wing/conservative political protestors cases have resulted in innocence or severe mitigation of sentencing. <br />
<br />
b. Left Wing/Liberal: Anti Nuclear (10): <i>State v. Mouer</i> (Columbia Co. Dist. Ct., Dec. 12-16, 1977), <i>People v. Brown</i> (Lake County, Jan. 1979); <i>People v. Block</i> (Galt Judicial Dist., Sacramento Co. Mun. Ct., Aug. 14, 1979); <i>California v. Lemnitzer</i>, No. 27106E (Pleasanton-Livermore Mun. Ct. Feb. 1, 1982); <i>State v. McMillan</i>, No. D 00518 (San Luis Obispo Jud. Dist. Mun. Ct., Cal. Oct. 13, 1987); <i>Massachusetts v. Schaeffer-Duffy</i> (Worcester Dist. Ct. 1989); West Valley City v. Hirshi, No. 891003031-3 MC (Salt Lake County, Ut. Cir. Ct., W. Valley Dept. 1990); <i>Washington v. Brown</i>, No. 85-1295N (Kitsap County Dist. Ct. N. 1985); <i>California v. Jerome</i>, Nos. 5450895, 5451038, 5516177, 5516159 (Livermore-Pleasanton Mun. Ct., Alameda County, Traffic Div. 1987); <i>Washington v. Karon</i>, No. J85-1136-39 (Benton County Dist. Ct. 1985)<br />
<br />
c. Left Wing/Liberal: Anti US Central American Foreign Policy (3); <i>Vermont v. Keller</i>, No. 1372-4-84-CNCR (Vt. Dist. Ct. Nov. 17, 1984); <i>People v. Jarka</i>, Nos. 002170, 002196-002212, 00214, 00236, 00238 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Apr. 15, 1985); <i>Colorado v. Bock</i> (Denver County Ct. June 12, 1985)<br />
<br />
d. Left Wing/Liberal: Anti-Military Industrial Complex (4): <i>Michigan v. Jones</i> et al., Nos. 83-101194-101228 (Oakland County Dist. Ct. 1984); <i>Michigan v. Largrou</i>, Nos. 85-000098, 99, 100, 102 (Oakland County Dist. Ct. 1985); <i>Massachusetts v. Carter</i>, No. 86-45 CR 7475 (Hampshire Dist. Ct. 1987); <i>Illinois v. Fish</i> (Skokie Cir. Ct. Aug. 1987)<br />
<br />
e. Left Wing/Liberal: Anti-Apartheid (3): <i>Chicago v. Streeter</i>, Nos. 85-108644, 48, 49, 51, 52, 120323, 26, 27 (Cir. Ct., Cook County Ill. May 1985); <i>Washington v. Heller</i> (Seattle Mun. Ct. 1985); <i>Washington v. Bass</i>, Nos. 4750-038, -395 to -400 (Thurston County Dist. Ct. April 8, 1987)<br />
<br />
f. Left Wing/Liberal: Pro-Environment/Cycling (1): <i>People v. Gray</i>, 571 N.Y.S.2d 851, 861-62 (N.Y. Crim. Ct.1991)<br />
<br />
g. Left Wing/Liberal: AIDS: Clean Needles Campaign (2) <i>California v. Halem</i>, No. 135842 (Berkeley Mun. Ct. 1991); In 1993, a jury acquitted a Chicago AIDS activist charged with illegally supplying clean needles because of the necessity defense. <br />
<br />
h. Right Wing/Conservative: Anti-Abortion (1): In 1990, in Omaha, Nebraska, a jury acquitted seventeen anti-abortion protestors because of the necessity defense. The trial judge relied on the defense to overturn the trespassing convictions of an additional eighteen defendants. <br />
<br />
i. Neutral: Anti-Corruption (1): In 1988, a North Carolina court acquitted two Tuscarora Indians of charges in connection with their taking of twenty hostages at the office of a local newspaper to protest the alleged corruption of county officials. <br />
<br />
j. Neutral: Anti-Alcohol Advertising (1): In 1991, a Chicago jury acquitted a Catholic priest of criminal charges for damage to the inner-city neighborhood where he was pastor after he admitted painting over three tobacco- and alcohol-related billboards. The defendant argued he should not be convicted because of the necessity defense. The jury deliberated ninety minutes before acquitting the defendant. </blockquote><br />
N. <i>Military Necessity and International Humanitarian Law</i>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>a. <a href="http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/military-necessity/">Crimes of War</a> and <a href="http://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=888">Diakona</a> define military necessity as: “a legal concept used in international humanitarian law (IHL) as part of the legal justification for attacks on legitimate military targets that may have adverse, even terrible, consequences for civilians and civilian objects. It means that military forces in planning military actions are permitted to take into account the practical requirements of a military situation at any given moment and the imperatives of winning. The concept of military necessity acknowledges that even under the laws of war, winning the war or battle is a legitimate consideration, though it must be put alongside other considerations of IHL.”<br />
<br />
b. Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, investigated allegations of War Crimes during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and published an <a href="http://www2.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/F596D08D-D810-43A2-99BB-B899B9C5BCD2/277422/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf">open letter</a> containing his findings. In a section titled "Allegations concerning War Crimes" he did not call it military necessity but summed up the term: “Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).”</blockquote><br />
O. <i>Military Necessity Justifies use of Nuclear Weapons for Self-Preservation</i>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>a. In the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion of 8 July 1996, on <a href="http://www.un.org/law/icjsum/9623.htm">The legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons</a>, the final paragraph states “that such threat or use would generally be contrary to international humanitarian law. The opinion went on to state, however, that the court “cannot lose sight of the fundamental right of every State to survival, and thus its right to resort to self-defence . . . when its survival is at stake.” The court held, by seven votes to seven, with its president‘s casting vote, that it “cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self defence in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.”</blockquote><br />
P. <i>Military Necessity in Nuremberg German High Command Trial</i>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>a. In the <a href="http://www.worldcourts.com/imt/eng/decisions/1948.10.28_United_States_v_von_Leeb.pdf">Trial of Wilhelm von Leeb and Thirteen Others: United States Military Tribunal</a>, Nuremberg, 30th December, 1947 – 28 the October, 1948 <br />
<br />
b. Wilhelm von Leeb and the other thirteen accused in this case were former high-ranking officers in the German Army and Navy, and officers holding high positions in the German High Command (OKW) were charged with Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and with Conspiracy to commit such crimes. The War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity charged against them included murder and ill-treatment of prisoners of war and of the civilian population in the occupied territories and their use in prohibited work; discrimination against and persecution and execution of Jews and other sections of the population by the Wehrmacht in co-operation with the Einsatzgruppen and Sonderkommandos of the SD, SIPO and the Secret Field Police; plunder and spoliation and the enforcement of the slave labour programme of the Reich.<br />
<br />
c. They were acquitted of some of the charges, where it was ascertained that military necessity existed objectively and/or subjectively in the particular circumstances.<br />
<br />
d. The Tribunal argued that “The devastation prohibited by the Hague Rules and the usages of war is that not warranted by military necessity. This rule is clear enough but the factual determination as to what constitutes military necessity is difficult. Defendants in this case were in many instances in retreat under arduous conditions wherein their commands were in serious danger of being cut off. Under such circumstances, a commander must necessarily make quick decisions to meet the particular situation of his command. A great deal of latitude must be accorded to him under such circumstances. What constitutes devastation beyond military necessity in these situations requires detailed proof of an operational and tactical nature. We do not feel that in this case the proof is ample to establish the guilt of any defendant herein on this charge.”<br />
<br />
e. Thus, in dealing with Reinhardt's alleged responsibility for plunder and spoliation, the Tribunal said: “The evidence on the matter of plunder and spoliation shows great ruthlessness, but we are not satisfied that it shows beyond a reasonable doubt, acts that were not justified by military necessity.”</blockquote><br />
Q. <i>Military Necessity: The Rendulic Rule: Importance of the Subjective Test</i>:</blockquote><a href="http://books.google.co.za/books/about/The_Law_of_Armed_Conflict.html?id=6FKf0ocxEPAC&redir_esc=y"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4Q6E6MQ4Tw-Dmu6JC5R9tKqoeJ24RF8djlZicawb53oHSwZ_25G7uvakWXQdJ3rwkkhxsTJ9Q9MDc8zG32JEoIbOQloYGVvybVyyeTxIgNFptFIhqBCtO5yPrxFPfnvIfpGau3OAm21I/s1600/LawArmedConflict_GarySolis.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 285px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 200px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote><blockquote>a. In <i><a href="http://books.google.co.za/books/about/The_Law_of_Armed_Conflict.html?id=6FKf0ocxEPAC&redir_esc=y">The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War</a></i>, Gary D Solis provides an overview of the Rendulic Rule in evaluation of the subjective test in evaluating a defence of Military Necessity: <br />
<br />
b. “In October 1944, Generaloberst Lothar Rendulic was Armed Forces Commander North, which included command of Nazi Forces in Norway. (Between World Wars I and II, Rendulic had practiced law in his native Austria.) Following World War II, he was prosecuted for, among other charges, issuing an order “for the complete destruction of all shelter and means of existence in, and the total evacuation of the entire civilian population of the northern Norwegian province of Finmark...” Entire villages were destroyed, bridges and highways bombed, and port installations wrecked. Tried by an American military commission, Rendulic's defence was military necessity. He presented evidence that the Norwegian population would not voluntarily evacuate and that rapidly approaching Russian forces would use existing housing as shelter and exploit the local population's knowledge of the area to the detriment of retreating German forces. The Tribunal acquitted Rendulic of the charge, finding reasonable his belief that military necessity mandated his orders. His case offers one of the few adjudicated views of what constitutes military necessity.<br />
<br />
c. <i>From the Tribunals opinion</i>:<br />
<br />
d. “Military necessity has been invoked by the defendant's as justifying.. the destruction of villages and towns in an occupied territory... The destruction of property to be lawful must be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war... There must be some reasonable connection between the destruction of property and the overcoming of the enemy forces. It is lawful to destroy railways, lines of communication, or any other property that might be utilized by the enemy. Private homes and churches even may be destroyed if necessary for military operations. It does not admit the wanton devastation of a district or the wilful infliction of suffering upon its inhabitants for the sake of suffering alone...<br />
<br />
e. “The evidence shows that the Russians had very excellent troops in pursuit of the Germans. Two or three land routes were open to them as well as landings by sea behind German lines... The information obtained concerning the intentions of the Russians was limited.. It was with this situation confronting him that he carried out the "scorched earth" policy in the Norwegian province of Finmark.. The destruction was as complete as an efficient army could do it...<br />
<br />
f. “There is evidence in the record that there was no military necessity for this destruction and devastation. An examination of the facts in retrospect can well sustain this conclusion. But we are obliged to judge the situation as it appeared to the defendant at the time. If the facts were such as would justify the action by the exercise of judgement, after giving consideration to all the factors and existing possibilities, even though the conclusion reached may have been faulty, it cannot be said to be criminal. After giving careful consideration to all the evidence on the subject, we are convinced that the defendant cannot be held criminally responsible although when viewed in retrospect, the danger did not actually exist....<br />
<br />
g. “..... We are not called upon to determine whether urgent military necessity for the devastation and destruction in the province of Finmark actually existed. We are concerned with the question whether the defendant at the time of its occurrence acted within the limits of honest judgement on the basis of the conditions prevailing at the time. The course of a military operation by the enemy is loaded with uncertainties... It is our considered opinion that the conditions, as they appeared to the defendant at the time, were sufficient upon which he could honestly conclude that urgent military necessity warranted the decision made. This being true, the defendant may have erred in the exercise of his judgement but he was guilty of no criminal act. We find the defendant not guilty of the charge. <br />
<br />
h. The Rendulic standard remains unchanged. Fifty-four years later, <a href="http://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/jud_supplement/supp46-e/galic.htm">in 2003, the ICTY wrote</a>: “In determining whether an attack was proportionate it is necessary to examine whether a reasonably well-informed person in the circumstances of the actual perpetrator, making reasonable use of the information available to him or her, could have expected excessive civilian casualties to result from the attack.” </blockquote><br />
R. <i>Military Necessity: Rendulic Rule: Subjective Honesty in current Military Doctrine</i>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>a. In <i><a href="http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=auilr">Unexpected Consequences From Knock-On Effects: A Different Standard for Computer Network Operations?</a></i>, Eric Talbot Jensen writes:<br />
<br />
b. “The standard the Court held General Rendulic to was the requirement to give "consideration to all factors and existing possibilities" as they "appeared to the defendant at the time."”<br />
<br />
c. “Note that the requirement to give consideration to all factors and existing possibilities is balanced with the overarching constraint of taking facts as they appear at the time of the decision. Must the commander remain in inaction until he feels he has turned over every stone in search of that last shred of information concerning all factors and possibilities that might affect his decision? The answer must be "no." Instead, he must act in good faith and, in accordance with GPI, do everything feasible to get this information.”</blockquote><br />
S. <i>Onus of Proof: Norwegian State or Breivik to Prove Necessity?</i>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>a. In South African law the Onus of Proof lies on the State in a defence of necessity, to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity.<br />
<br />
b. In <i>S v Pretorius</i> 1975 (2) SA 85 (SWA) Judge AJ Le Grange found that “The onus of proof in a defence of necessity as in self-defence rests on the State to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity. It is not for the accused to satisfy the court that she acted from necessity (p 293). .. (proceed) by gathering an objective view of the circumstances from the evidence itself, and the magistrate‘s finding whether the prevailing circumstances were “alarming” if viewed objectively…. Viewed objectively… was the accused confronted with a situation that …… lives were in danger….<br />
<br />
c. “[90] [If the evidence gives a picture of threatening danger and fear, which gave rise to necessity and which would have justified the accused‘s conduct, provided the accused did not exceed the limits of necessity…. Proceed to consider whether the proven circumstances satisfy the tests for necessity set out by B & Hunt at p. 285 of their work: (a) the threatening disaster endangered the accused‘s legal interests. This in fact gave rise to a duty to act. (b) the danger was threatening and imminent. The fact that symptoms relating to the danger may only appear later does not detract from the situation… if it cannot immediately be ascertained whether or not the symptoms are dangerous, necessity arises… (d) the chances that harm would have resulted and it would have been of a serious nature.. the greater the harm, the greater the necessity…”<br />
<br />
d. If Norwegian law also places the Onus of Proof to lie on the State in a defence of necessity, to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity; it would appear that the Prosecutor‘s decision to “refuse to touch the principle of necessity” should weigh heavily in the Defendant‘s favour.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">28 August – 06 September 2012: No Response from the Norwegian Supreme Court:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
A. On 28 August 2012, I contacted the Supreme Court Registrar with a request for a Case Number for my application for Review of the Oslo District Court’s Brievik Judgement.<br />
<br />
B. On 31 August 2012, I again contacted the Supreme Court Registrar with a request for a Case Number for my application for Review of the Oslo District Court’s Brievik Judgement.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">02 September 2012: Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing by Supreme Court Registrar:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
A. On 02 September 2012, I submitted a complaint (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120902_po-scr?mode=window&viewMode=singlePage">PDF</a>) to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: <i>Slow Case Processing / Failure to Provide Case Processing by Supreme Court Registrar; to Application for Review of ‘Breivik Judgement’</i>. <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">10 September 2012: Response from Supreme Court Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby: No Legal Standing:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
A. On 11 September 2012, I was informed of the decision by Supreme Court of Norway: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby in: <i><a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/09/120910_nsc-gbergby.html" target="_blank">Application for review of Oslo District Court Judgement of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24)</a></i>.<br />
<br />
B. Secretary General Bergby implied that my application was an ‘Appeal’, and stated that I lacked legal standing, because I was not a ‘party to the case’. Mr. Anders Behring Breivik and the prosecution authority “are the only parties in the specific case mentioned above, and the right of appeal is constricted to these”. <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">11 Sep 2012: Response to Supreme Court: Secretary General:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
A. On 11 September 2012, applicant responded (<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-09-11_resp_nsc_secgen_gunnarbergby_decision-dated-09-09-12_encl.pdf" target="_blank">PDF</a>) to Secretary General Gunnar Bergby. Applicant requested the Secretary General to provide her with the relevant statute in Norway that provides the Secretary General the authority to refuse to process a case, citing lack of locus standi/legal standing; thereby denying such applicant due process access to be heard by an impartial court? <br />
<br />
B. Applicant argued that it was for the court to decide the matter of locus standi, not the Secretary General; citing <i><a href="http://www.eftacourt.int/images/uploads/E-2-94_Judgment.pdf">Scottish Salmon Growers Association Limited v. EFTA Surveillance Authority</a></i> (Case E-2/94); <i><a href="http://www.eftacourt.int/images/uploads/E-5_07_Report_for_the_Hearing_FINAL_revised.pdf">Private Barnehagers Landsforbund v EFTA Surveillance Authority, supported by Kingdom of Norway</a></i> (Case E-5/07) ; and Hans Chr. Bugge, Professor of Environmental Law at the Department of Public and International Law, University of Oslo, in his article: <i><a href="http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~avosetta/buggeaccessnorw02.pdf">General background: Legal remedies and locus standi in Norwegian law</a></i> : “There is no clear definition or delimitation of the concept. Whether a person has "legal interest" is decided discretionary in each case, and depends on individual circumstances.”<br />
<br />
C. Applicant clarified her application was not an ‘Appeal’, which ‘locus standi’ was restricted to the ‘parties in the specific case’, but one of Certiorari/Review, where her locus standi/legal standing was based upon her being a member of a group of activists: known as political necessity activists, who have ‘legal interest’ in the judgement, due to its violations of ECHR Article 13 and 14, and its necessity ruling was not sufficiently precise, as required in <i><a href="http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html">Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom</a></i>, in order to allow Political Necessity Activists to regulate their activism in accordance with the law. <br />
<br />
D. The Oslo District Courts ‘Breivik Judgement’, discriminated against Breivik, by denying him a Free and Fair Subjective and Objective Test Enquiry into his Necessity evidence; and set a discriminatory legal precedent against future Norwegian Political Necessity activists, and furthermore due to the international prominence of the trial on the world stage, the Judgement sent a publicity message that a Court could deny an Accused pleading to Necessity, a Free and Fair Subjective and Objective Test Enquiry into their Necessity evidence, on the world stage. <br />
<br />
E. Denying Mr. Breivik his right to an objective and subjective test of his necessity evidence, set a legal precedent where environmental, immigrant, religious or other necessity activists are also denied their right to an objective and subjective examination of their necessity evidence (or can due to ignorance from the Breivik trial’s publicity, deny themselves, by lacking the knowledge to assert their right thereto).<br />
<br />
F. Applicants was consequently demanding her Article 13 Right to an Effective Remedy, and in terms of Article 14: to Prohibit this Discriminatory Erroneous Necessity Ruling against Breivik, herself and other Necessity Activists.<br />
<br />
G. The applicant confirmed that the principle of an Application for Review existed in Norwegian courts, as documented by (1) Former President of Norwegian Supreme Court Justice Carsten Smith, (2) Chief Justice of the Norway Supreme Court: Tore Schei ; and (3) Supreme Court Justice: Karen Bruzelius .<br />
<br />
H. Applicant requested that her Application be interpreted in terms of Article 13 ECHR read in conjunction with Protocol 7 ECHR and the <a href="http://www.eftacourt.int/images/uploads/15_10_JUDGMENT.pdf">EFTA Courts Judicial Review Posten Norge Judgement</a>; effectively interpreted as the Right to Judicial Review of an Administrative Decision or a Court Order.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">08 October 2012, 2nd Request to Secretary General Gunnar Bergby:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
A. Applicant sent a reminded request for a response to her response sent Tuesday, September 11, 2012 12:04 AM.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">03 November 2012: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Complaint of Supreme Crt Registrar Slow Case Processing:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
A. On 03 November 2012, applicant filed a complaint (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121103_po-nsc">PDF</a>) of Slow Case Processing by Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">15 November 2012: Parliamentary Ombudsman Rules that Norway Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby’s ‘Administrative Decision’ is a “Decision of a Court of Law’:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
A. On 15 November 2012, the Parliamentary Ombudsman responded to Complaint on Supreme Court of Norway (<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-11-15_2012-1943_supreme_court_of_norway.pdf">PDF</a>), declining to investigate it, because “the Storting's Ombudsman for Public Administration, section 4, first paragraph, litra c), decisions of the courts of law can not be handled by the Ombudsman”. <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Contradictions between Parliamentary Ombudsman’s “Slow Case Processing” by Courts Administrative Officials of (a) 11 July 2012 Supervisory Committee for Judges: Secretariat: Espen Eiken, and (b) 15 November 2012: Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby.</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
A. In the 11 July 2012 Parliamentary Ombudsman ruling: <i>Lack of Response from the Supervisory Committee for Judges</i> (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120711_som_2012-1943?mode=window&viewMode=singlePage">PDF</a>); in response to a complaint of <i>Slow case processing from the Supervisory Committee for Judges</i>, the Ombudsman’s directions were to “submit "a written request to Tilsynsutvalget for dommere, where you call for answers to your applications. If you do not receive a response to this request within a reasonable time, you can contact the Ombudsman, with an enclosed copy of the last request to Tilsynsutvalget for dommere."”<br />
<br />
B. The Parliamentary Ombudsman clearly believed they had the authority to require the Supreme Court Administration: Supervisory Committee for Judges: Secretariat, to provide the applicant with due process, processing of her complaints against Judges Opsahl, Arntzen and Schei. <br />
<br />
C. In the 15 November 2012 the Parliamentary Ombudsman responded to <i>Complaint on Supreme Court of Norway</i> (<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-11-15_2012-1943_supreme_court_of_norway.pdf">PDF</a>); in response to a complaint of “<i>Slow Case Processing by Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby: Re: Request for Statute Granting Sec Gen Authority to make ruling on Legal Standing”; the Ombudsman’s directions are that “decisions of the courts of law can not be handled by the Ombudsman</i>.”<br />
<br />
D. Here the Parliamentary Ombudsman, chose to interpret the erroneous ‘locus standi’ administrative decision by Secretary General Gunnar Bergby, as a “decision of a court of law”, and hence to deny themselves the authority to require Secretary General Gunnar Bergby to provide Applicant with a response to her question requesting the Statute granting a Secretary General the authority to make a ruling on legal standing. <br />
<br />
</blockquote></div><div align="center"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiGNYtNUxL1P0u-C_QtbS7rW5BrDF7YjXZyIGWYIIdYCL-Xjvy7TKTqgy8X06BSVCrbW1OunWK4kBjqhuJScO74zZS4jDZLi0OQd7kRR6mYcXRwv4wNrs2Gc7Rm2vUo8HYAcLtBmQOC3A/s1600/12-11-15_2012-1943_Supreme+Court+of+Norway.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFYtnKek3_bDG25yHAo7p1NapxcVL-77UFa6NAlzkcbbEZy1PIFu1Bz2XyCUWl1L22W6Siep-PMJy4rhBbSg0dGFgSMSD08uoSFLPOvE2iMbDhil6ip_YXzYlk7wABf56hyJyNBS8YZE4/s1600/12-11-15_2012-1943_Supreme+Court+of+Norway_600x821.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 821px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 600px;" /></a></div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/12-1943-court-admin.html">Ecofeminists v Breivik: Parl Ombudsman</a>]</span></strong></blockquote><br />
<br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-72689033654938074692012-11-12T06:27:00.000-08:002013-02-05T06:29:44.613-08:00NO Env. Appeals Board Rules 'Media's Censorship of Population & Consumption does not Affect Environment''<div align="justify"><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">NO Env. Appeals Board Rules 'OverPopulation and Consumption does not Affect Environment'</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">The Environmental Appeals Board’s ruling that Editors decision-making to censor information about the Media’s Population-Environment-Terrorism Connection during Breivik’s Highly Public Terrorism trial, alleging that it was not ‘Environmental Information’ is beyond absurd, and totally lacking in factual and legal justifications.</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 12 November 2012</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhs7bmQKqiZrejEtGfT5XgMEYPBzrDAlEVozgcNjZ_TI7_QPq08lZPPa6mVeM3WyJsOPjR37zh0q9iQsqnLupKSQCKM7vNO2BkGnTi0MObjPJ_3n_e67ImI47ZomzJY8tAzGKdi5BmCm0Q/s1600/EAB_Media-AdvFor_700x860.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiduR1R1bxDPzhiABH7ZuedIM757IlB3if-9ckDR4nf2Rw2nerOc0YEvqvhYEY1VMGzP9WLlRBV6dPMLcAqO3rcVDlfuwIaXN7b0bzLOymVBT3rYjC2mOJMFK4gs39wRdEEKSWL15km2us/s1600/EAB_Media-AdvFor_350x430.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 430px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 350px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 95%;">Anders Breivik Alleged that his Terrorism was motivated by the Media’s Censorship of Non-Violent Problem Solving, which facilitated a socio-political pressure cooker reality for the media's <i>If it Leads, It Bleeds</i> Profit from violence. <br />
<br />
<b>Oslo Organized Crime Police Investigation Report: "Explanation of 22 July 2011, doc 08,01, states:</b><br />
<br />
“[Breivik] emphasizes that if he had not been censored by the media all his life, he would not have had to do what he did. He believes the media have the main responsibility for what has happened because they did not publish his opinions.... The low-intensity civil war that he had already described, had lasted until now with ideological struggle and censorship of cultural conservatives...... He explains that this is the worst day of his life and that he has dreaded this for 2 years. He has been censored for years. He mentions Dagbladet and Aftenposten as those who among other things have censored him..... He says that he also wrote “essays” that he tried to publish via the usual channels, but that they were all censored..... The subject summarizes: As long as more than twelve were executed, the operation will still be a success. The experts ask how the number twelve comes into consideration. Twelve dead are needed to penetrate the censorship wall, he explains..... About his thoughts on the Utøya killings now, the subject says: The goal was to execute as many as possible. At least 30. It was horrible, but the number had to be assessed based on the global censorship limit. Utøya was a martyrdom, and I am very proud of it..... The subject says in the conversation that he knows the truth that is hidden from others. He believes that there is a civil war in the country. He believes he had to kill at least twelve, because there is a censorship-wall preventing an open debate about what is happening in the country..... So I knew I had to cross a certain threshold to exceed the censorship-wall of the international media."</span></blockquote><a name='more'></a><div align="center"><a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJZPj_1SWXWvyLlmRAgy0CECpSqhbfzctqlXhs97tHB4maoYbOMEvkQ9wg8GGeJtrggM9CDTSYcuf0w6P8PMn3xY-0nr91BulyjINw0y0Hspz-SGwc5NgHa1VtgcBwZpc3PRRkdJ8Mrs/s1600/NorwayVBreivik_FleurdeLis_MargaretHagen_556x119.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div><br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Excerpts from Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman: NO Env. Appeals Board Rules 'OverPopulation and Consumption does not Affect Environment''</span></span></strong> </blockquote></div><br />
<blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">13 May 2012: Social Science Testing of Anders Breivik’s Media Censorship Allegations:</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
I sent over 1,300 Norwegian Editors and Journalists an email[1]: <b>Breivik Acquittal Justified by Media's Massive Censorship of Oslo Crt Proceedings?</b>, which included information that:<br />
<br />
<i><b>[1] In December 2011, complainant informed[2] 1,283 Norwegian Editors and Journalists of her EcoFeminist support for Breivik’s right to a free and fair trial, in a Habeus Mentem application to the Oslo District Court.</b></i><br />
<br />
The application argued that the roots of terrorism – irrespective of whether it was Mr. Breivik’s ‘right wing’ terrorism, or Mandela and Guevarra’s left wing terrorism -- were a result of the Mainstream Media’s censorship of non-violent problem solving to facilitate a socio-political pressure cooker reality for their “If it Bleads, It Leads” corporate propaganda profits from terrorism violence. The mainstream media are the chief cheerleaders for overpopulation and overconsumption, which cause resource scarcity, local and national resource wars, which frequently include terrorism. <br />
<br />
Mainstream media deliberately and intentionally aggravate overpopulation, overconsumption and resource scarcity social conflict, by providing preferential access to parties who advocate on behalf of population growth and Consumptionism and silencing those opposing overpopulation and overconsumption. <br />
<br />
The media’s conscious deliberate choices to advocate on behalf of population growth and Consumptionism, to the detriment of the environment, and ecological social and economic problems were well documented in the study by Dr. Michael Maher: <b>How and Why Journalists Avoid Population - Environment Connection</b>[3].<br />
<br />
The consequence of the Media’s advocacy results in an Anthropocentric Masculine Insecurity legal system, which refuses to acknowledge the laws of nature: i.e. sustainable security demands that societies live in accordance to their carrying capacity, and acts and advocacy in support of breeding and consumption wars should be acknowledged as ACTS OF WAR.. However Anthropocentric legal doctrine ignores the laws of nature, believing that the earth is flat, resources are infinite, and everyone has the inalienable right to be a breeding war or consumption war combatant, pretending breeding and consumption war combatants are ‘innocent’.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><b>[2] In April 2012, complainant informed 1,384 Norwegian Editors and Journalists of her EcoFeminist support for Breivik’s right to a free and fair, in an Application to the Oslo District Court to proceed as an Ecocentric Amicus Curiae. </b></i><br />
<br />
The proposed Amicus would provide the court with – among others - a Laws of Nature perspective how Masculine Insecurity was a direct and indirect root cause and aggravating factor for most of the worlds problems, due to obstructing Radical Transparency communication problem solving, and being the cognitive foundation of the anti-Meritocratic Bullshit the Public Relations communication paradigm. <br />
<br />
Anthropocentric Flat Earth Society law views the world from a fundamentalist inaccurate masculine insecurity human-centred perspective, assuming there will always be “enough” Non Renewable Natural Resources (NNR‘s) to enable a brighter future, concerning itself with production and distribution of NNR‘s for ever improving material living standards for ever-increasing numbers of our ever-expanding global population. From an Ecocentric Finite Resource Scarcity perspective, Peak NNR: Overpopulation and Overconsumption of NNR’s shall result in the impending collapse of industrial civilization, which cannot exist without these resources (Scarcity: Humanity’s Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity’s Consequences, by Chris Clugston)<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><b>[3] Masculine Insecurity of Norwegian Elite’s Political Psychiatry Silencing of Breivik’s Heresy: “The inquisition is to heresy, as psychiatry is to mental illness.”</b></i><br />
<br />
Both applications also provided extensive evidence of how Politics is a dispute about the power or authority to define other people's reality, and that Political Correctness is a symptom of the Political elite’s use of Psychiatry to enforce Political Correct conformity. Psychiatry is an agent of, or a state mechanism of, social control to enforce Political and State power; which often allows for social control and coercion of Political Correct Conformity outside of the criminal justice system. Information included International Experts who argued that “there is no such thing as mental illness, or a mental disorder”, its all just about social control, PC “value judgements and cultural norms”; based upon “horoscope chart science” and Pharma-Psychiatry‘s Humpty Dumpty definition of “insanity” and “disorder”.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">25 May 2012: Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law)</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
I contacted the editors of Adresseavisen[4], Aftenposten[5], Bergens Tidende[6], Dagbladet[7], NRK[8], TV2[9] and VG[10] requesting:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>[1] Your Editors decision-making justification for censorship of the Norway v. Breivik Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection documentation provided to your publication in 13 May 2012 email: Breivik Acquittal Justified by Media's Massive Censorship of Oslo Crt Proceedings?<br />
<br />
[2] (a) The total number of articles published by your publication either in print or online which refer to Breivik’s alleged “insanity”; and (b) the number of these articles which - for fairness, impartiality and scientific objectivity - include a “Critical Psychiatry” perspective, such as: “The Myth of Mental Illness”, the Marketing of Madness[11], the use of Psychiatry as social control, and Psychiatrists Legal Testimony being equivalent to that of “Whores of the Court”: “psychobabble with scientific foundations equal to horoscope charts… the science behind it all is nonexistent”.[12]<br />
<br />
[3] The total amount of advertising revenue received by your publication from Pharmaceutical Corporations per year, over the past five years.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">18 June 2012: Complaint to Environment Appeals Board: </span></span></strong><br />
<br />
I submitted a Complaint[13] to Environmental Appeals Board: Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Censorship in Norway’s Media: (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">10 September 2012: Secretariat of Environmental Appeals Board Ruling:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<blockquote>We refer to your appeal of June 18 2012 against Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG regarding the undertakings decline to provide a justification for the decision not to publish two articles related to the incident on July 22 2011 and terrorism. We also refer to your appeal of August 16 2012 against the Norwegian Bar Association´s Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Board regarding their refusal to provide an environmental justification for the policy to refuse complaints by e-mail.<br />
<br />
According to the Environmental Information Act section 16 (1) "Any person is entitled to receive environmental information from undertakings such as are mentioned in section 5, sub-section 2, concerning factors related to the undertaking, including factor inputs and products, which may have an appreciable effect on the environment". <br />
<br />
When used in the Environmental Information Act, the term "environment" means the external environment, including archaeological and architectural monuments and sites and cultural environments, cf. section 2 (2) of the act. Information regarding the social environment is thus not considered "environmental information" as the term is defined in the act. Information concerning human health, safety and living conditions, is only considered "environmental information" to the extent that these factors are or may be affected by the state of the external environment or factors that affect or may affect the environment, cf. section 2 (1). <br />
<br />
The right to receive environmental information from undertakings is limited to information concerning factors "which may have an appreciable effect on the environment".<br />
<br />
Concerning your first appeal, the Appeals Board for Environmental Information would like to point out that the editorial choices made by the staff working for newspapers, TV channels etc. are not factors related to the undertaking which may have an effect on the environment. The information that you have requested from Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG is thus not "environmental information".<br />
<br />
[..]<br />
<br />
On these grounds, the Appeals Board has made the following decision: <br />
<br />
The appeals are denied as not justified. <br />
<br />
The decision of the board is final and is not subject for further appeals. Disputes about the duties of undertakings according to The Environmental Information Act may be subject for legal proceedings.<br />
<br />
Regarding your first appeal, the secretariat for the Appeals Board adds that editors` freedom to make decisions in editorial issues is granted in the Act regarding Editorial Freedom in the Media section 4.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">08 October 2012: Request Clarification of ‘Environment’ Definitions:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
I wrote and asked them to clarify their 'thinking'[1]: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Please could you clarify for me your reasoning viz a viz: “When receiving appeals that clearly have to be denied”<br />
<br />
It is not remotely clear to me why my complaints ‘clearly had to be denied’; unless your office is massively corrupt, like many other Norwegian government offices, on the matter of Mr. Breivik’s case and surrounding issues. <br />
<br />
The Dept of Environment clearly encourages people to be active in holding Government Departments and corporations accountable on environmental issues:<br />
<br />
---------<br />
<br />
A prerequisite for environmental law to work as intended is that the public uses it actively.<br />
<br />
The law will put citizens able to:<br />
<br />
* contribute to the protection of the environment<br />
* protect against health and environmental <br />
* influence public and private decision makers in environmental issues<br />
<br />
---------<br />
<br />
According to: LAW 2003-05-09 # 31: Act concerning the right to information and participation in public decision-making processes relating to the environment (environmental law).<br />
http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-20030509-031.html<br />
<br />
--------<br />
<br />
§ 2 What is understood by environmental<br />
<br />
(1) An environmental means factual information and reviews about<br />
<br />
a) environment,<br />
<br />
b) factors that affect or may affect the environment, including<br />
- planned and implemented measures and activities in the environment,<br />
- product features or content,<br />
- Ratio of operating the business, and<br />
- administrative decisions and actions, including individual decisions, agreements, regulations, plans, strategies and programs, and associated analyzes, calculations and assumptions,<br />
<br />
c) human health, safety and living conditions to the extent they are or may be affected by the state of the environment or the factors mentioned in b<br />
<br />
(2) The environment means the environment including cultural heritage.<br />
<br />
--------<br />
<br />
The Aarhus Convention defines 'environmental information' as:<br />
<br />
-----------<br />
<br />
3. “Environmental information” means any information in written, visual, aural, electronic or any other material form on:<br />
<br />
(a) The state of elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites, biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms, and the interaction among these elements;<br />
<br />
(b) Factors, such as substances, energy, noise and radiation, and activities or measures, including administrative measures, environmental agreements, policies, legislation, plans and programmes, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment within the scope of subparagraph (a) above, and cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used in environmental decision-making;<br />
<br />
(c) The state of human health and safety, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures, inasmuch as they are or may be affected by the state of the elements of the environment or, through these elements, by the factors, activities or measures referred to in subparagraph (b) above;<br />
<br />
-----------<br />
<br />
The information requested of the Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG clearly - if you read it - falls under both LAW 2003-05-09 # 31: Environmental Law and the Aarhus Convention definitions. <br />
<br />
The information requested of Norwegian Bar Association´s Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Board clearly falls under both LAW 2003-05-09 # 31: Environmental Law and the Aarhus Convention definitions.<br />
<br />
It is therefore not remotely obvious why you wrote:<br />
<br />
"When receiving appeals that clearly have to be denied, it is not necessary to ask the respondents to provide their arguments. In these cases the secretariat prepares a draft decision and consults the members of the board. If the draft decision is approved by the members of the board, no further discussion is needed. This makes the Appeals Board able to settle obvious cases without arranging unnecessary meetings. Your appeals have been settled this way. Because no meeting has taken place, you will not receive a signed decision."<br />
<br />
Is the secretariat for the Appeals Board for Environmental Information | www.miljoklagenemnda.no | Environmental Appeals Board just a Fake PR front for Corporate whores raping the planet? Setup just to pretend Nowegian Government gives a fuck about the environment? You just sit there and rubber stamp environmental requests with " clearly have to be denied" and laugh how massively stupid the citizens are for believing the bullshit in your Duhmockery press releases that you legislate laws to encourage citizens to:<br />
<br />
* contribute to the protection of the environment<br />
* protect against health and environmental <br />
* influence public and private decision makers in environmental issues </blockquote><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">ARGUMENT</span></span></strong></div><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">[1] Irregular Violation of Due Process: Irregular failure of Impartial Arbitration due process procedures</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
There is no evidence whatsoever to justify the Environmental Appeals Board’s decision that complainants complaint fits the decision of an Appeal that clearly had to be denied. ("When receiving appeals that clearly have to be denied, it is not necessary to ask the respondents to provide their arguments.”)<br />
<br />
The Environmental Appeal Boards conduct was that of appointing itself as legal counsel for the Respondents, instead of being impartial arbiter of the issues, subsequent to hearing the evidence of both arguments. <br />
<br />
An impartial arbiter provides both parties with the opportunity to submit their arguments and evidence and then bases their final ruling upon the evidence submitted to it. Appointing itself as the counsel for one party, is not an indication of impartial arbitration based upon the evidence submitted to the arbiter to adjudicate the matter in accordance to the rule of law. <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">[2] Environmental Appeals Board fails to justify how the requested Population Growth and Consumptionism information requested from the Media is not ‘Environmental Information’: Population Growth and Corporate Advocacy of Consumptionism are primary factors in Resource Scarcity, Species Extinction and Environmental Degradation.</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
The Environmental Appeal Boards decision that the Media’s deliberate decision-making to refuse to inform the public of ‘How and Why Journalists Censor the Population-Environment Connection’ information supporting Breivik’s argument about media censorship being a contributory motivating factor for resource scarcity, social conflict and political and socio-economic problems; is not ‘Environmental information’, is beyond absurd. <br />
<br />
Population Growth: Population growth is one of the primary, if not the primary factors contributing to species extinction, resource depletion and environmental degradation. Censorship of population growth aggravates species extinction, resource depletion, social conflict and resource wars. Population growth is a primary aggravating factor for the social conditions that pressure Muslims and Africans to emigrate to Europe to escape the overcrowded consequences of overpopulation colliding with declining resources in their own countries. <br />
<br />
To censor information about population growth’s consequences on the environment massively aggravates population growth’s consequences on the environment. <br />
<br />
In the same way that an oil company’s CEO’ is required to make due diligence corporate decisions to protect the environment, by securing his oil tankers from spillage; a media corporation has the same due diligence to educate their readers about information that harms the environment, whether that information is population growth, overconsumption or oil companies bad decision making. <br />
<br />
The rule of law requires – or should require – that all corporations, including media corporations are held to the same standards of due diligence in terms of their decision making choices to harm, or protect, the environment. <br />
<br />
Political Correct Conformist Consumptionism: Consumptionism is a direct and indirect root cause and aggravating factor for the planets ecological problems, of which the political and economic problems are simply symptoms of the deeper ecological problems. Peak Nonrenewable Natural Resources shall result in the impending collapse of industrial civilization, which cannot exist without these resources[1]. Consumptionism is a direct result of pharma-psychiatry’s zombification of individuals identities from being critical thinking citizens who based their purchases based upon need being converted to pacified zombie conformist consumers, whose identity was based upon their consumptionism. Pacified zombie conformist consumers are incapable of critical thinking faculties to act on behalf of defending their nations environments and natural resources from being raped and pillaged by international consumptionist corporations. <br />
<br />
Population growth and Consumptionism is factual information (§2 (1)(a)[2]) that directly affects not only the environment (§2 (1)(b)), but the health, safety and living conditions of all beings who live in that particular environment (§ 2(1)(c)). Corporate decision making (§ 2(1)(b)) to censor factual information (§2 (1)(a)) information about of population growth or Consumptionism, similarly directly affects not only the environment (§2 (1)(b)), but the health, safety and living conditions of all beings who live in that particular environment (§ 2(1)(c)).<br />
<br />
According to the General Court in Luxembourg[3], the Aarhus Convention prevails over the EU’s own regulations about access to information, public participation, and access to justice within EU institutions. Consequently in a conflict over interpretation or definitions, the Aarhus Convention would also prevail over the Right to Environmental Information (LAW 2003-05-09 # 31).<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">[3] Editor’s and Environmental Appeals Board’s Refusal of Access to Information from Media Respondents is Contrary to Provisions of Freedom of Information Act, Right to Environmental Information Act[4] and Aarhus Convention:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
The public’s access to information includes access to information about whether any decision by a public, corporate or media official purposing to be acting ‘on behalf of informing the public’ was impartial, rational, fair, and subjectively and objectively reasonable. The Freedom of the Press does not include the freedom to refuse the public access to information about Editorial decision-making processes. <br />
<br />
In the case of reporting on a politically sensitive trial, freedom of the press does not include the freedom to abuse the press’ publicity power on behalf of the State, by censoring information to the detriment of a free and fair trial. <br />
<br />
The public’s access to information, includes access to information from the Respondent Editors, regarding the editorial decision making processes involved in choosing to censor from their readers the information submitted to them in the emails: Breivik Acquittal Justified by Media's Massive Censorship of Oslo Crt Proceedings? <br />
<br />
The public’s access to Environmental Information, includes access to information about how and why the editors choose to censor population information and the consequences of such censorship upon political and social problems experienced by the public. <br />
<br />
At the very least the media owe the public an explanation for their editorial decision-making justifications for censoring this information from the public, at this particular time, during this particular trial. <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/parliamentary-ombudsman.html">EcoFeminist vs. Breivik</a>]</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-60287898595669262842012-11-02T06:25:00.000-07:002013-02-05T06:26:26.521-08:00Supv. Comm. for Judges: Ruling: Breivik Case Irregularities Complaints Against Judges Opsahl, Arntzen and Schei<div align="justify"><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Supv. Comm. for Judges: Ruling: Breivik Case Irregularities Complaints Against Judges Opsahl, Arntzen and Schei</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;"></span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminist vs. Breivik |02 November 2012</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVg9hipK8NIb2PZfWQHYswgDfS58NskAuN7R6r91vHeRof_DX2EcDzateBIlw8Hpar5mp1Fs2FlmKyTS8RVyZclaIQ2NTZr-Iva472RFZ3HKk9Ej3smCa1MC9tips46LN9ED5DnBix6c0/s1600/SC4J_Opsahl-Arntzen-Schei.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVg9hipK8NIb2PZfWQHYswgDfS58NskAuN7R6r91vHeRof_DX2EcDzateBIlw8Hpar5mp1Fs2FlmKyTS8RVyZclaIQ2NTZr-Iva472RFZ3HKk9Ej3smCa1MC9tips46LN9ED5DnBix6c0/s1600/SC4J_Opsahl-Arntzen-Schei.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 358px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 318px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 95%;">[Received 02 November] On 23 October, the Supervisory Committee for Judges changed their minds and decided they were not going to process the complaints. Previously they had said that the complaints would be processed, whereby all the Judges would be required to submit a statement about their reasons, in accordance to the issues raised in the complaints. <br />
<br />
However the Supervisory Committee for Judges now decided that all the Judges do not have to submit their affidavits, and the complaints will be ruled as 'obviously unfounded'. <br />
<br />
The decision by the Committee is in Norwegian (I have not translated all of it yet): <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/12-071-judge-nina-opsahl.html">Judge Opsahl</a> (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121023_ninaopsahl?mode=window&viewMode=singlePage">PDF</a>), <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/12-072-judge-wenche-arntzen.html">Judge Arntzen</a> (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121003_warntzen?mode=window&viewMode=singlePage">PDF</a>), <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/12-073-justice-tore-schei.html">Justice Schei</a> (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121023_toreschei?mode=window&viewMode=singlePage">PDF</a>).</span></blockquote><a name='more'></a><div align="center"><a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJZPj_1SWXWvyLlmRAgy0CECpSqhbfzctqlXhs97tHB4maoYbOMEvkQ9wg8GGeJtrggM9CDTSYcuf0w6P8PMn3xY-0nr91BulyjINw0y0Hspz-SGwc5NgHa1VtgcBwZpc3PRRkdJ8Mrs/s1600/NorwayVBreivik_FleurdeLis_MargaretHagen_556x119.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div><br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Supv. Comm. for Judges: Ruling: Breivik Case Irregularities Complaints Against Justice Schei</span></span></strong> </blockquote></div><br />
<blockquote>..</blockquote><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><object style="height: 600px; width: 600px;"><param name="movie" value="http://static.issuu.com/webembed/viewers/style1/v2/IssuuReader.swf?mode=mini&viewMode=singlePage&embedBackground=%23505050&shareMenuEnabled=false&backgroundColor=%23222222&documentId=121102211926-3eae20b3e4b54481a4741dfc2bf8c1ee" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/><param name="menu" value="false"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"/><embed src="http://static.issuu.com/webembed/viewers/style1/v2/IssuuReader.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" menu="false" wmode="transparent" style="width:600px;height:600px" flashvars="mode=mini&viewMode=singlePage&embedBackground=%23505050&shareMenuEnabled=false&backgroundColor=%23222222&documentId=121102211926-3eae20b3e4b54481a4741dfc2bf8c1ee" /></object></div><blockquote>.. </blockquote><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/supv-comm-4-judges1.html">EcoFeminist vs Breivik</a>]</span></strong></blockquote></div><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-6708345067143813622012-09-11T06:22:00.000-07:002013-02-05T06:23:29.663-08:00Supreme Crt. Sec. Gen. Gunnar Bergby Response to Application to Review Breivik Judgement<div align="justify"><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">10 Sept: Ruling by Norway Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby: No Legal Standing</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Response: If Mr. Breivik wants to deny himself and other White Nationalists, their right to the court conducting a full impartial objective and subjective enquiry into their necessity evidence, that is their choice. It is my assertion that the Breivik judgement necessity ruling is discriminatory, by setting a precedent that can deny (or can due to ignorance deny themselves, by lacking the knowledge to assert their right thereto); other necessity activists an objective and subjective examination of their necessity evidence. </span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminist vs. Breivik | 11 September 2012</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/11-sept-legal-standing.html"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAOrPN589GKN-ZX_NdLzR0vDrgEqzigvrqwjq5ZK5GZ-AbOjLM1LepFoIs5IEAlKsLn9ihlHCT8HgNLzDGHmMRdU1OaiZuIOGwaXkHV6fMIy33lpVrKdzPei15LjDFWy_R_8gaqYov0Sw/s1600/12-09-10_NSC_SecGen_GunnarBergby_350x557.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 557px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 350px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 95%;"><a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/09/120910_nsc-gbergby.html">Ruling</a> by Supreme Court of Norway: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby in: <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/27-aug-12-review-applic.html">Application for review of Oslo District Court Judgement of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24)</a><br />
<br />
Reference is made to your e-mails sent 27 August, 28 August and 31 August 2012 regarding the above mentioned matter.<br />
<br />
I wish to draw your attention to the <a href="http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/lov-19810522-025-eng.pdf">Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act section 306</a> (a copy in English is enclosed). According to this regulation, 1st paragraph, the parties may appeal against a criminal judgment rendered by the district or appellate court. Persons or legal entities that are not parties to the case are not given the right of appeal. Mr. Anders Behring Breivik and the prosecution authority are the only parties in the specific case mentioned above, and the right of appeal is constricted to these. <br />
<br />
Consequently, the Supreme Court of Norway will not be able to comply with the request set forth in your e-mails. Further requests and applications from you will neither be handled nor answered by the Supreme Court. </span></blockquote><a name='more'></a><div align="center"><a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJZPj_1SWXWvyLlmRAgy0CECpSqhbfzctqlXhs97tHB4maoYbOMEvkQ9wg8GGeJtrggM9CDTSYcuf0w6P8PMn3xY-0nr91BulyjINw0y0Hspz-SGwc5NgHa1VtgcBwZpc3PRRkdJ8Mrs/s1600/NorwayVBreivik_FleurdeLis_MargaretHagen_556x119.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div><br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Response to Supreme Court Sec. General: Gunnar Bergby</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;"></span></span></strong> </blockquote></div><br />
<blockquote><b>Gunnar Bergby<br />
Secretary-General / President<br />
Supreme Court of Norway</b><br />
<br />
Secretary General Bergby,<br />
<br />
<b>Re: Sec.Gen decision of 09.09.2012, to Application for review of Oslo District Court's judgment of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24)(<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-09-11_resp_nsc_secgen_gunnarbergby_decision-dated-09-09-12_encl.pdf">PDF</a>)</b> <br />
<br />
Thanks for your undated letter, sent 10 September 2012, where you state: <br />
<blockquote><i>Reference is made to your e-mails sent 27 August, 28 August and 31 August 2012 regarding the above mentioned matter.<br />
<br />
I wish to draw your attention to the Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act section 306 (a copy in English is enclosed). According to this regulation, 1st paragraph, the parties may appeal against a criminal judgment rendered by the district or appellate court. Persons or legal entities that are not parties to the case are not given the right of appeal. Mr. Anders Behring Breivik and the prosecution authority are the only parties in the specific case mentioned above, and the right of appeal is constricted to these. <br />
<br />
Consequently, the Supreme Court of Norway will not be able to comply with the request set forth in your e-mails. Further requests and applications from you will neither be handled nor answered by the Supreme Court. </i></blockquote><br />
<b>Relief Requested: </b><br />
<br />
Could you kindly provide me with the relevant statute in Norway that provides the Secretary General the authority to refuse to process a case, citing lack of locus standi/legal standing; thereby denying such applicant due process access to be heard by an impartial court?<br />
<br />
It is my understanding – perhaps incorrect - that it is not a matter for the Secretary General to make a final ruling on the relevant locus standi / legal interest of any party in any dispute. See for example: <br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://www.eftacourt.int/images/uploads/E-2-94_Judgment.pdf">Scottish Salmon Growers Association Limited v. EFTA Surveillance Authority</a></i> (Case E-2/94): “<b><u>The Court finds</u></b> that this principle must also apply when considering … whether a measure is reviewable and who has locus standi to bring an action for annulment of a decision.” (11) <br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://www.eftacourt.int/images/uploads/E-5_07_Report_for_the_Hearing_FINAL_revised.pdf">Private Barnehagers Landsforbund v EFTA Surveillance Authority</a></i>, supported by Kingdom of Norway (Case E-5/07): <b><u>The court finds…</u></b>. “In Husbanken I, it was sufficient for the association whose complaint had been at the origin of the case to show that the legitimate interests of its members were affected by the decision, by affecting their position on the market; and that in this case, where the decision was a decision not to object to State aid, locus standi could even arise alone from the facts that the association was, as a representative of its members, at the origin of the complaint, that it was heard in the procedure and that information was gathered from the State in question” (66)<br />
<br />
According to Hans Chr. Bugge, Professor of Environmental Law at the Department of Public and International Law, University of Oslo, in his article: <b><a href="http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~avosetta/buggeaccessnorw02.pdf">General background: Legal remedies and locus standi in Norwegian law</a></b>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The general criterion for locus standi in civil court cases in Norway is that the plaintiff must have "legal interest" in the case.( Art. 54 of the Civil Proceedings Act.) The dispute must be a live controversy, and the plaintiff must have a sufficiently close connection to the subject matter so as to justify the court's treatment of the dispute. <b><u>There is no clear definition or delimitation of the concept</u></b>. <b><u>Whether a person has "legal interest" is decided discretionary in each case, and depends on individual circumstances</u></b>. The core question to ask is whether the person has reasonable grounds for having the issue tried by a court. To have "legal interest" to have a matter tried by the courts, the plaintiff must be affected by the matter to such an extent that it justifies the use of the court system. Interests which are only based on public or common rights, such as the public right of way, may be accepted if they are strong enough. <br />
<br />
However, a purely "ideal" interest in the matter is not enough. For example, an ordinary citizen has not locus standi in a case concerning the authorities' licencing to kill wolves, based on his general interest in the protection of these predators. <br />
<br />
Based on Supreme Court cases, it is usually accepted that nongovernmental environmental associations have "legal interest" in environmental cases. This was established by the Supreme Court in 1980 (the Alta case) The court accepted that the Norwegian Association for Nature Conservation had standing to sue the government in respect of the validity of the decision to build a hydropower dam and station on the Alta river.<br />
<br />
In a later case, a nationwide association working to influence life style and reduce consumption, in favour of international solidarity and environmental protection, was entitled to bring an action for compensation for pollution damage on fishing and recreational areas against two chemical factories in the Southern part of Norway bordering Sweden. The local branch of the Swedish Association for Nature Conservation in the affected area, was also found to have standing in the case. </blockquote><br />
I cannot find any ruling or decision on locus standi, where it says the ‘Secretary General’ of the Courts Administration Act, ruled on a matter of locus standi. All of the locus standi decisions I could find in Norwegian law, all clearly indicate that the matter is <b><u>heard by the court, not by the Secretary General of Courts Administration</u></b>. <br />
<br />
In the absence of any staturory authority granting you the Secretary General the authority to make a decision on locus standi, as far as I am aware, the matter of locus standi is consequently a matter that is dealt with by the court, not the Secretary General, or any court administration official. <br />
<br />
<b>Legal Standing: Party in Proceedings:</b> <br />
<br />
Additionally, if there is such statutory authority granting Secretary Generals the authority to adjudicate matters of locus standi, thereby denying an applicant their hearing on a matter of locus standi by an impartial court; could you also provide me with the following evidence, to support your official decision to deny my application due process before an impartial court of law: <br />
<br />
1. The court transcript of the day upon which Judge Nina Opsahl publicly acknowledged receipt of my Habeus Mentem (Right of Legal Sanity on behalf of Mr. Breivik) application in open court proceedings, including her interpretation of how my application was interpreted by the court (eg. intervene as a party), and the subsequent ruling by the court, approving or denying my application and decisions therefore; hence confirming my alleged ‘non-party’ status, in this matter.<br />
<br />
2. The court transcript of the day upon which Judge Wenche Arntzen publicly acknowledged receipt of my Amicus Curiae application in open court proceedings, including her interpretation of how my application was interpreted by the court, and the subsequent ruling by the court, approving or denying my application and hence confirming my alleged ‘non-party’ status, in this matter.<br />
<br />
In the absence of such evidence provided to the Supreme Court by the Oslo District Court, proving that my Habeus Mentem and Amicus Curiae applications were provided impartial due process consideration and adjudication; those matters regarding my legal standing status as a ‘party, or not’ to the proceedings, remain unresolved, and can only be resolved before an impartial court. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, according to 03 September 2012 correspondence from the the <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/supv-comm-4-judges1.html">Supervisory Committee for Judges</a>, the status of the complaints against Judge Opsahl, Judge Arntzen and Justice Schei for denying me my due process right of access to a court to resolve my disputes, are as follows:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>“Your complaints have been given the case numbers 12-071 (Judge Nina Opsahl), 12-072 (Judge Wenche E. Arntzen) and 12-073 (Justice Tore Schei). The complete handling time can be close to six months.<br />
<br />
If a party have given a statement in the case, these will be provided the complainant. The Supervisory Committee has not received statements from the other parties involved.</blockquote><br />
<b>Legal Standing: Legal Interest:</b> <br />
<br />
I am an Ecofeminist Political Necessity Activist, who has an interest in ensuring that all political activists from all ideologies, religions, races, cultures who plead to political or military necessity have their ‘necessity’ evidence examined by the court, in terms of an objective and subjective test of such ‘necessity evidence’; the results of such an enquiry being used to make the final determination as to the accused’s guilt or innocence, or mitigation or aggravation of sentencing. <br />
<br />
Mr. Breivik’s trial was the most high profile necessity trial on the world stage, for decades. If Mr. Breivik wants to deny himself and other White Nationalists, their right to the court conducting a full impartial enquiry into their necessity evidence, by conducting a subjective and objective test thereof; then that is Mr. Breivik and White Nationalists right to deny themselves an impartial enquiry by the court of their necessity evidence. <br />
<br />
The denial by the court, to Mr. Breivik of his right to an objective and subjective test of his necessity evidence, should not be allowed to set a precedent where environmental, immigrant, religious or other necessity activists are also denied their right to an objective and subjective examination of their necessity evidence, just because one white nationalist chooses to become a martyr, with the enthusiastic support of the Oslo District Court and Norwegian Prosecutory authorities. <br />
<br />
As detailed in my <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/nom--affidavit.html">Notice of Motion</a> ground [A.1.g] (Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Discriminatory Precedent) it is my assertion that the ‘Nodrett/Necessity’ ruling in the Oslo District Court: Breivik judgement as it currently stands discriminates against other future necessity activists, by setting a precedent whereby they can be denied (or can due to ignorance deny themselves, by lacking the knowledge to assert their right thereto); an objective and subjective examination of their necessity evidence. <br />
<br />
My application for review is accordingly to demand the right to an effective remedy, to amend this discriminatory necessity ruling in the Oslo District Court’s Breivik judgement, from affecting other necessity activists. <br />
<br />
<blockquote><b>ECHR: ARTICLE 13: Right to an effective remedy</b><br />
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.<br />
<br />
<b>ECHR: ARTICLE 14: Prohibition of discrimination</b><br />
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<b>Request Norwegian Court Officials Provide Consideration to my Review Application, equivalent to the Consideration Given by Military Judge Lind in the Bradley Manning Courtmartial to Letters from <a href="http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/ccr-et-al-v-usa-and-lind-chief-judge">Center for Constitutional Rights</a></b>:<br />
<br />
In the case of Bradley Manning’s court martial before a U.S military court, lawyers simply wrote two letters (i.e. not official Notice of Motion applications) to the presiding Chief Judge Lind, objecting to the courts secrecy about particular issues. The Judge proceeded to honourably publicly in court proceedings acknowledge receipt of the letters, file them as public court record exhibits, and treated them as a request to intervene, providing an official court record denial of the request. <br />
<br />
<blockquote><b><a href="http://ccrjustice.org/files/Govt-response-brief-(CAAF)--US-v-Center-for-Constitutional-Rights-et-al.pdf">Appellee's answer to Appellants Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition</a></b> (Pg2-3)<br />
<br />
On March 21, appellants, who are not parties to the court martial, sent a letter to the military judge requesting the Court: "make available to the public and the media for inspection and copying all documents and information filed in the Manning case, including the docket sheet, all motions and responses thereto, all rulings and orders, and verbatim transcripts or other recordings of all conferences and hearings before the Court."<br />
<br />
At the 39(a) session on April 24, the military judge marked appellants letter as Appellate Exhibit 66, treated it as a request to intervene, and denied the request."</blockquote><br />
I would imagine if a Military Judge in a Military Court (generally considered far more formalistic than a civilian court) could favourably interpret a letter as an application; then a civilian court could provide a Pro Se applicant who filed an application, with the same honourable transparency? Is this too much to ask of Norwegian jurists and court officials? <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2238880389442028">Read Further</a>]</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-82348300161645308632012-08-27T06:19:00.000-07:002013-02-05T06:21:52.681-08:00Breivik Judgement Review filed with Norway Supreme Court; to Set Aside Necessity & Conviction Rulings<div align="justify"><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Breivik Judgement Review filed with Norway Supreme Court; to Set Aside Necessity & Conviction Rulings</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">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.</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminist vs. Breivik | 27 August 2012</span></strong></blockquote></div><a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/27-aug-12-review-applic.html"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFtb0pdQX6Hp4h3AUxPvj1RsrSGcl7wI7FYF2mvW9tUxQ8bm1_W2c2r2gw0I2ELN125wQgxceSD026UVyn_eKFNG-sVrvnvAioJfwt3tpvC6XV3szOilg2oEmOHJdvL1Y-8E2IK3qclJ0/s1600/12-08-24_Judgement-Review_Logo-NoTxt_350x266.PNG" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 260px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 350px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote>Application <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/120827_nsc-rev-ocbj.html">submitted</a> to <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/norway-supreme-court.html">Norway Supreme Court</a> for <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/27-aug-12-review-applic.html">Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement Ruling</a>; 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]<br />
<br />
Respondents: <br />
First: OSLO DISTRICT COURT<br />
Second: KINGDOM OF NORWAY (Prosecution) <br />
Third: ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK<br />
Fourth: VICTIMS FAMILIES<br />
<br />
Excerpts from Notice of Motion.<br />
<br />
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”).</blockquote><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
<b>{I} REVIEW ORDERS REQUESTED:</b><br />
<br />
The following ‘Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement’ decisions are reviewed: <br />
<br />
<b>[A.1] Set Aside the Judgements <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120824_nvb-judmnt?mode=window&viewMode=singlePage">‘Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling’</a> (pg.67):</b><br />
<br />
</blockquote><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" style="width: 550px;"><tbody>
<tr valign="top"><td width="265"><span style="font-size: 95%;"><b>6.2 De sakkyndiges arbeid og konklusjoner</b><br />
[..] 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. </span></td> <td width="265"><span style="font-size: 95%;"><b>6.2 The committee's work and conclusions</b><br />
[..] 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.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<blockquote><b>[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.</b><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>[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</b><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>[A.4] If Failure of Justice Irregularity Does not Influence Conviction and/or Sentence Verdict; a ‘Non-Precedent Setting’ Declaratory Order</b><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>[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.</b><br />
<br />
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). (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120530_tilsynsutvalget_arntzen?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>)<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>[C] The respondents who oppose this application are ordered jointly and severally to pay their own costs in terms of this application.</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>{II} GROUNDS FOR REVIEW:</b><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<b>[A.1.a] Necessity Judgement fails to provide any necessity criminal provisions that prohibit killing of Government Officials in case of Necessity.</b><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>[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.</b><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>[A.1.c] Necessity Judgement’s Erroneous interpretation of Necessity related criminal law provisions and international necessity related human rights law. </b><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>[A.1.d] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Failure to conduct required Objective and Subjective Tests for Defendant’s Necessity Defence:</b><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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: <br />
<br />
(a) Is Islam an Iceberg or a mirage/illusion on the horizon? <br />
<br />
(b) If an iceberg: Is Titanic Europe unsinkable or an icebreaker? <br />
<br />
(c) If not: how large, how far, how deep is Islam Iceberg and if moving, how fast, in what direction? <br />
<br />
(d) What is the distance between Titanic Europe and Islam Iceberg and at what speeds are they moving towards impending collision? <br />
<br />
(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? <br />
<br />
(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?<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>[A.1.e] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Inadequate</b><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>[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.</b><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>[A.1.g] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Discriminatory Precedent</b><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>[A.1.h] Necessity Judgements ‘Extreme Political Objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test </b><br />
<br />
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’.<br />
<br />
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’.<br />
<br />
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’. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>[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.</b><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><b>The Myth that Economic and Political Solutions Can Solve Any Problem <br />
<br />
From a broader ecological perspective, all human economics and politics are irrelevant.</b> </div><br />
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. <br />
<br />
A healthy ecological environment, with due regard for carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a <i>sine qua non</i> 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 <i>sine qua non</i> for healthy, transparent relationships that result in the co-creation of a code of conduct that enables non-violent honest sincere resolutions to disagreements.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 .<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>[B] Judgement’s Transparency Failure violates Aarhus Convention principles and public accountability impartiality principles.</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/27-aug-12-review-applic.html">27 Aug: Review Breivik Judgement</a>][<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/120827_nsc-revbj_resp.html">Respondents Notice</a>][(<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120827_nsc-review-bj?mode=window&viewMode=singlePage">PDF</a>)]</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-58570030815058961992012-08-17T04:41:00.000-07:002012-08-22T04:42:39.401-07:00PFU to discuss processing of Breivik Guilty Complaint against Nina Berglund on 28 August<div align="justify"><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Breivik denies consent for EcoFeminist's 'Breivik is Innocent till Found Guilty' Media Complaint</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;"></span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 17 August 2012</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/press-complaints-comm-pfu.html"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSpF7GSAnCxdJhfgS6tzR48TC_eh1A0t42WStV8FDIpfPZ8zkaNbJ6g1LPsSMCj5JXJppRN2GgPJDQ9P3qmfLKpGTUCrMsdIvq5zp7YmarjmMtBoS1wupocvWr-vExl2jOpPHZI691fjw/s1600/Lippestad_PFU_NwV.PNG" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 310px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 367px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote>On 31 July, a complaint was <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/07/120731_pfu-nie1.html">submitted</a> to Press Complaints Commission against a Norway News in English, article wherein Editor, Ms. Nina Berglund wrote that 'Breivik's Guilt was Established Long Ago'.<br />
<br />
According to Norwegian Press Complaints Commission procedures a <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/07/120731_pfu-nie1.html">request for consent</a> was also submitted to Mr. Breivik, via his attorneys: <b>Request for Consent to file Complaint against Nina Berglund, Editor: News & Views from Norway: Violation of 3.1, 3.2, 4.5 of Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press in Article: Breivik Moved to New Prison</b> (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120731_nberglund-breivikguilt?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) <br />
<br />
The Complaint (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120731_nberglund-breivikguilt?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) requests an order from the PFU, that Ms. Berglund be required to: (A) Correct the error of her statement that “Breivik’s guilt has been established (long ago)”; and/or provide the source for her statement of alleged fact. (B) Confirm that Anders Breivik’s is entitled to due process, including the right to be considered ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in accordance to the rule of law; and that no court of law has yet found Anders Breivik Guilty of any crime, and; (C) Apologize to Mr. Anders Breivik for violating his right to the presumption of innocence, and; (D) Apologize to her readers, for encouraging them to participate in the process of trial by media to violate Mr. Breivik’s right to the presumption of innocence. <br />
<br />
Subsequent <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/press-complaints-comm-pfu.html">correspondence</a> with Lippestad attorneys confirmed that they had informed Breivik of the request for consent, on behalf of newspapers respecting his right to presumption of innocence, until a court of law has made a finding of guilt. Mr. Breivik has so far declined to respond by either providing or declining consent; the implication thereof being that he has chosen to deny consent. <br />
<br />
Direct correspondence and requests for clarification were sent to both Mr. Breivik and his advocate: Mr. Geir Lippestad. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Mr. Lippestad was <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/120813_lipp-bnecc_1000.html">asked</a>: <br />
<blockquote>1. Why did Defence Counsel not demand Prosecutor Engh and Holden provide reasons for their refusal to address Breivik’s claim of necessity? <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
3. In Norwegian Law upon which party does the Onus of Proof lie in a claim of necessity?<br />
<br />
4. Is there some political correct conformity conspiracy between Defence Counsel and Prosecution to ignore Breivik’s claims of necessity? <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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? </blockquote><br />
Mr. Breivik was <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/120813_breivik-disc_1049.html">asked</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><b>Request Clarification: What were your instructions to your attorney’s regarding ‘Guilt/Innocence: Necessity’</b><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Your testimony, on the other hand, repeatedly focussed on your claim of necessity as the source for your innocence. <br />
<br />
So, I am confused: If you sincerely believe your claims of innocence and necessity: <br />
<br />
* At the very least: Why have you not instructed Mr. Lippestad to retract his statements that contradict yours?<br />
<br />
* 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? <br />
<br />
* 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? <br />
<br />
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. </blockquote><br />
<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/120813_pfu-lipp_1034.html">According to</a> Mr. Tord Jordet: <br />
<blockquote>"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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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."</blockquote><br />
Mr. Jordet was <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/120813_breivikdisc_1121.html">informed</a> that Mr. Breivik was not being asked to intervene in the matter, only to provide his consent, that he agreed with the principle that nobody should be accused by a journalist of having been 'found guilty' in a newspaper, without such a 'finding of guilt' made by an impartial court. <br />
<br />
There has been no further response. <br />
<br />
<b>Proceeding without Breivik's Consent:</b><br />
<br />
On 17 August a request was made to the PFU to proceed without Mr. Breivik's consent:<br />
<blockquote>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'. <br />
<br />
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 <br />
<br />
(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<br />
<br />
(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. </blockquote><br />
<b>Processing of Breivik's Non-Consent Complaint to Be Discussed on 28 August</b><br />
<br />
On 17 August, the PFU <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/response-from-pfu-kjell-nyhuus-re-breivik-guilty-complaint-against-news-views.html">responded</a> that:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The Norwegian Press Complaints Commission will on august 28th decide if your complaint can be handled by the commission without consent from mr. Beivik. We will also discuss with the ms. Berglund of Views and News if her website is within our competence (our area). </blockquote><br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [Excerpts: <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/press-complaints-comm-pfu.html">PFU Complaint: News w Views</a>]</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-59580625738884593422012-08-15T04:34:00.000-07:002012-08-22T04:36:33.128-07:00PFU: Process News w. Views 'Breivik Guilty' Complaint as Public Interest Judicial Reporting Important matter<div align="justify"><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">PFU: Process News w. Views Complaint as Public Interest Judicial Reporting Important matter </span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">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'. </span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 15 August 2012</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/120815_pfu-comm.html"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiirhbEK1lO0mxtzwebRd8Pw5yqQddkaiWHsfKpC8DdJmALZ-O4GNTyoQedmBn-kgCFXKGIpktxh1Aj9l2gTHVh7z4iIp66e70cHXZguwvGeAi6aboVwIPRU1H-PG37Li0XH8feNZZRHSc/s400/Lippestad_PFU_NwV.PNG" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 310px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 367px;" /></a><br />
<br />
<blockquote><a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/120815_pfu-comm.html">Request to PFU The Norwegian Press Complaints Commission: Kjell Nyhuus, Commission secretary</a>: <br />
<br />
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: <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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'. <br />
<br />
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 <br />
<br />
(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<br />
<br />
(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. <br />
<br />
Below is a copy of the correspondence with Lippestad Attorney's; and excerpts of correspondence sent to Mr. Breivik himself, on the matter .........</blockquote>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJZPj_1SWXWvyLlmRAgy0CECpSqhbfzctqlXhs97tHB4maoYbOMEvkQ9wg8GGeJtrggM9CDTSYcuf0w6P8PMn3xY-0nr91BulyjINw0y0Hspz-SGwc5NgHa1VtgcBwZpc3PRRkdJ8Mrs/s1600/NorwayVBreivik_FleurdeLis_MargaretHagen_556x119.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div><br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">PFU: Process News w. Views Complaint as Public Interest Judicial Reporting Important matter </span></span></strong> </blockquote></div><br />
<br />
<blockquote>From: Lara Johnstone<br />
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 12:06 PM<br />
To: 'Kjell Nyhuus'; 'PFU: GenSec: Per Edgar Kokkvold'<br />
Cc: 'Ingrid Nergården Jortveit'; 'Trude Hansen'; 'PFU: Sec: Monica Andersen'; 'Norway News in English: Nina Berglund'; Crt: Lippestad: Tord Jordet<br />
<b>Subject: RE: <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/press-complaints-comm-pfu.html">PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'</a></b><br />
<br />
The Norwegian Press Complaints Commission<br />
Kjell Nyhuus<br />
Commission secretary<br />
Postboks 46 Sentrum<br />
0107 Oslo<br />
<br />
CC: News with Views & Lippestad Attorneys<br />
<br />
Mr. Nyhuus, <br />
<br />
<b>RE: <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/press-complaints-comm-pfu.html">PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'</a></b><br />
<br />
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: <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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'. <br />
<br />
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 <br />
<br />
(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. <br />
<br />
Or<br />
<br />
(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. <br />
<br />
#########################################################################<br />
<br />
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: <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/oslo-district-court.html">http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/press-complaints-comm-pfu.html</a><br />
<br />
(full transcript of correspondence available at link)<br />
<br />
#########################################################################<br />
<br />
<b>10 Aug 2012: Lippestad Attorneys: Req. Breivik Consent:<br />
<br />
Request to Lippestad Attorneys: Attorney Tord Jordet:</b><br />
<br />
The PFU appear to be refusing to process my complaint without Mr. Breivik's consent. Unfuckingbelievable!!! <br />
<br />
1. Has Mr. Breivik received the request for consent? <br />
<br />
2. If so, when does he intend responding? <br />
<br />
===================<br />
<br />
<b>13 Aug: 2012: Lippestad Attorney: Breivik Consent & Breivik 'Guilt/Innocence & Necessity' Request to Lippestad for Clarity re: Breivik 'Innocence/Guilt' Issues:</b><br />
<br />
1. Why did Defence Counsel not demand Prosecutor Engh and Holden provide reasons for their refusal to address Breivik’s claim of necessity? <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
3. In Norwegian Law upon which party does the Onus of Proof lie in a claim of necessity?<br />
<br />
4. Is there some political correct conformity conspiracy between Defence Counsel and Prosecution to ignore Breivik’s claims of necessity? <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
===================<br />
<br />
<b>Response from Attorney Tord Jordet:</b> <br />
<br />
"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." <br />
<br />
===================<br />
<br />
<b>Response to Attorney Tord Jordet:</b><br />
<br />
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! ;-)<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
Sorry for the misunderstanding, if so. <br />
<br />
===================<br />
<br />
<b>Response from Attorney Tord Jordet:</b><br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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." <br />
<br />
===================<br />
<br />
<b>Response to Attorney Tord Jordet:</b><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
===================<br />
<br />
<b>Copy of Correspondence to Breivik, sent to Lippestad Attorneys:</b> <br />
<br />
Please take notice of correspondence sent to Mr. Breivik, honourable transparency, copied to your offices, in reference to:<br />
<br />
------------ <br />
<br />
<b>Request Clarification: RE: Habeus Mentem, Amicus Curiae and Review Applications Filed:</b><br />
<br />
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’. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/oslo-district-court.html">Oslo District Court</a>: Judge Nina Opsahl (Habeus Mentem: Right to Legal Sanity) and Judge Wenche (Amicus Curiae: Friend of the Court) and the <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/norway-supreme-court.html">Norwegian Supreme Court</a>: Review and Declaratory Order. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Request Clarification: What were your instructions to your attorney’s regarding ‘Guilt/Innocence: Necessity’</b><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Your testimony, on the other hand, repeatedly focussed on your claim of necessity as the source for your innocence. <br />
<br />
So, I am confused: If you sincerely believe your claims of innocence and necessity: <br />
<br />
* At the very least: Why have you not instructed Mr. Lippestad to retract his statements that contradict yours?<br />
<br />
* 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? <br />
<br />
* 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? <br />
<br />
See Annex F: <b>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</b>. <br />
<br />
----------------<br />
<br />
All correspondence to, and from, Mr. Breivik is publicly available for reading, and download, at:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/breivik-letters.html">http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/breivik-letters.html</a><br />
<br />
############################ END #####################################<br />
<br />
Respectfully Submitted<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
<br />
Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist<br />
<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com">http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com</a><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/120815_pfu-comm1.html">Read Further</a>]</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />
Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-16152593576479435192012-08-12T04:14:00.000-07:002012-08-22T04:18:12.760-07:00Q's to Mr. Lippestad: Req for Clarity Re: guilt/innocence issue ignored in Breivik Trial by Prosecutors & Defence Counsel<div align="justify"><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Necessity Defence Cases that resulted in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing (incl. Mass Murder)</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Mr. Geir Lippestad: Req for Clarity Re: guilt/innocence issue ignored in Breivik Trial by Prosecutors & Defence Counsel</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 13 August 2012</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/press-complaints-comm-pfu.html"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJFIDgDFEFVwNt2iOASCnPhHTmpdhSKn9d9h0PNA-RV4mvqGevPybDXIbU9k7PKzdvYFP90aO3Mi-LYu87c7jXitd_43ESWLisj2jw4KLcKdx2y9YWdL4lCOhTl74SZhQm3yZ3eDCk6uY/s1600/PFU_NinaBerglund_BreivikGuiltInnocence_323x470.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 470px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 323px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 95%;"><b>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. </b><br />
<br />
Questions I have:<br />
<br />
1. Why did Defence Counsel not demand Prosecutor Engh and Holden provide reasons for their refusal to address Breivik’s claim of necessity? <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
3. In Norwegian Law upon which party does the Onus of Proof lie in a claim of necessity?<br />
<br />
4. Is there some political correct conformity conspiracy between Defence Counsel and Prosecution to ignore Breivik’s claims of necessity? <br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
As you are aware, I recently filed a <a href="http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/press-complaints-comm-pfu.html">Press complaint with PFU</a> against News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: '<b>Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago</b>'. <br />
<br />
In summary, according to my paralegsal understanding of the law: “The prosecutor’s irregular decisions to ‘refuse to touch Breivik’s invocation of Necessity’ does not: (a) have the power to nullify Breivik’s invocation of necessity; (b) grant the court the authority to ‘refuse to touch Breivik’s invocation of necessity’; (c) grant the media the authority to find Mr. Breivik ‘guilty’ in a ‘trial by media ignorance of the law’. <br />
<br />
A Norwegian friend responded to my complaint to the PFU with:<br />
<br />
"I would rather think this would be grounds for requesting a retrial due to gross neglect by his counsel. My thinking is that they all simply ignored his claim of necessity hoping that if all did the same no one would call out the bluff, the bluff being the absence of an imperative to discuss the claim of necessity. If both prosecution and defense behave as if it is simply so ridiculous that by ignoring it they "spared" Breivik of the humiliation of being confronted with how insane and ludicrous it is, then the court, the media and, more importantly, the public would by into that fraud as well."<br />
<br />
My understanding of Norwegian and International/Foreign Law on Necessity (in attached PDF) </span></blockquote><a name='more'></a><div align="center"><a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJZPj_1SWXWvyLlmRAgy0CECpSqhbfzctqlXhs97tHB4maoYbOMEvkQ9wg8GGeJtrggM9CDTSYcuf0w6P8PMn3xY-0nr91BulyjINw0y0Hspz-SGwc5NgHa1VtgcBwZpc3PRRkdJ8Mrs/s1600/NorwayVBreivik_FleurdeLis_MargaretHagen_556x119.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div><br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Excerpts: Mr. Geir Lippestad: Req for Clarity Re: guilt/innocence issue ignored in Breivik Trial by Prosecutors & Defence Counsel</span></span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<br />
<blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Prosecutor Engh and Holden ‘Refuse to touch Breivik’s Principle of Necessity’: </span></span></strong><br />
<br />
The following reports indicate that Prosecutor Engh and Holden violated – what would in South African law be -- their duty of objectivity in terms of (a) impartially enquiring into and/or responding to the Accuseds’ Defence; and (b) providing the court with the Prosecution’s evaluation and conclusion of the evidence for and against Breivik’s invocation of his Necessity Defence.<br />
<br />
In her closing statement, Prosecutor Engh acknowledge’s that:<br />
<br />
(1) Norwegian prosecutors have a duty to conduct their investigation with objectivity; <br />
(2) Norwegian law allows for an accused to plead to necessity and/or self defence, <br />
(3) Where an accused does invoke necessity, it is the court and prosecutor’s duty to investigate the accused’s necessity defence arguments and evidence; <br />
(4) If an accused successfully invokes a necessity defence, this can and must result in either mitigation of sentence and/or a verdict of innocence;<br />
(5) Breivik invoked the defence of necessity;<br />
(6) Despite the fact that Breivik invoked the necessity defence, both Prosecutor Engh and Holden ‘refuse to touch the principle of necessity’.<br />
<br />
[..] <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Onus of Proof: Norwegian State or Breivik to Prove Necessity?</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
In South African law the Onus of Proof lies on the State in a defence of necessity, to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>In <b>S v Pretorius 1975<i></i></b> (2) SA 85 (SWA) Judge AJ Le Grange found that ‘Despite the accused’s plea of guilty, it appears from all the evidence on the record that an offence was not committed. In the result, the conviction and sentence, must, be set aside.’ <br />
<blockquote>[87] The accused who had no legal representation, referred, despite his plea of guilty, to circumstances which materially gave rise to the defence of necessity. This defence made it necessary for the magistrate to decide in the first instance not what the accused’s frame of mind had been, but whether necessity was present and whether it justified the accused’s conduct. .. The Judge ‘could find no cases and the Court did not refer to any where the question had been finally decided whether the test for necessity relates to an objective emergency or to a subjective frame of mind (or fear)….. <br />
<br />
[88] There is, however, nothing in my humble opinion, in the cases referred to or in any other cases, which I could find, which could serve as authority for the proposition that necessity cannot also be viewed as “a ground of justification”. The question whether the defence of justification amounts to a ground of justification or to a circumstance excluding fault, has been thoroughly canvassed by De Wet and Swanepoel in their said work as well as by Burchell & Hunt in their revised edition of S.A. Criminal Law and Procedure, Part 1…. <br />
<br />
[89] The onus of proof in a defence of necessity as in self-defence rests on the State to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity. It is not for the accused to satisfy the court that she acted from necessity (p 293). [(proceed) by gathering an objective view of the circumstances from the evidence itself, and the magistrate’s finding whether the prevailing circumstances were ‘alarming’ if viewed objectively…. Viewed objectively… was the accused confronted with a situation that …… lives were in danger…. <br />
<br />
[90] [If the evidence gives a picture of threatening danger and fear, which gave rise to necessity and which would have justified the accused’s conduct, provided the accused did not exceed the limits of necessity…. Proceed to consider whether the proven circumstances satisfy the tests for necessity set out by B & Hunt at p. 285 of their work: (a) the threatening disaster endangered the accused’s legal interests. This in fact gave rise to a duty to act. (b) the danger was threatening and imminent. The fact that symptoms relating to the danger may only appear later does not detract from the situation… if it cannot immediately be ascertained whether or not the symptoms are dangerous, necessity arises… (d) the chances that harm would have resulted and it would have been of a serious nature.. the greater the harm, the greater the necessity…</blockquote></blockquote><br />
If Norwegian law also places the Onus of Proof to lie on the State in a defence of necessity, to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity; it would appear that the Prosecutor’s decision to ‘refuse to touch the principle of necessity’ should weigh heavily in Breivik’s favour. <br />
<br />
Even if Norwegian law places the Onus of Proof on Breivik in a defence of Necessity, to prove the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity, the Prosecutions decision to ‘refuse to touch the principle of necessity’ should again weigh heavily in Breivik’s favour; unless the Prosecution could and did provide a reasonable argument for their failure to uphold their duty for impartial objectivity to enquire into the evidence for the Defendant’s Necessity defence. <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Common Law Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
In <b><i>Regina v Dudley and Stephens</i></b> (1884) 14 QBD 273, three crew members and a cabin boy escaped a shipwreck to spend eighteen days on a boat, over 1,000 miles from land, with no water and only two one pound tins of turnips. After four days, they caught and ate a small turtle. That was the only food that they had eaten prior to the twentieth day of being lost at sea. Ultimately, two of the crew members killed the ailing cabin boy and “fed upon the body and blood of the boy for four days.” Four days later, they were rescued. Two of the men were charged with murder. The court found that the cabin boy would likely have died by the time they were rescued and that the crew members, but for their conduct, would probably have died as well. The Queen's Bench Division Judges held that the defendants were guilty of murder in killing the cabin boy and stated that their obvious necessity was no defence. The defendants were sentenced to death, but this was subsequently commuted to six months' imprisonment.<br />
<br />
In <b><i>Spakes v. State</i></b>, 913 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), the Texas Criminal Appeals Court allowed the jury to be instructed on the necessity defense before deliberating the verdict for an inmate whose three cellmates had planned an escape and threatened to slit his throat if he did not accompany them. The defendant inmate argued that because of the terribly violent crimes of which his cellmates had been convicted (one had bragged about chopping his girlfriend up with an ax), it was a necessity that he break the law, by accompanying them in their escape.<br />
<br />
In <b><i>United States v. Ashton</i></b>, 24 F. Cas. 873, 873-74 (C.C.D. Mass 1834) (No. 14,470), sailors prosecuted for mutiny were found not guilty, after arguing the necessity for their mutiny based upon the dangerously leaky ship and that this danger had been concealed from them until after they left port. Circuit Justice Story found them not guilty of mutiny. <br />
<br />
In <b><i>United States v. Holmes</i></b>, 26 F. Cas. 360 (E.D. Pa. 1842) (No. 15,383), Holmes was involved in a shipwreck, where the crew were charged with manslaughter for throwing sixteen passengers overboard in a frantic attempt to lighten a sinking lifeboat. The Prosecutor argued the passengers should be protected at all costs, whereas the Defence placed the jurors in the sinking lifeboat with the defendant. The Defendant was found guilty, but the jurors requested leniency, to which the court complied by sentencing the defendant to six months in prison and a fine of twenty dollars. <br />
<br />
In the 1919 Arizona decision of <i><b>State v. Wooten</b></i>, commonly referred to as the Bisbee Deportation case, Professor Morris describes the acquittal of a Sherrif based upon the ‘necessity’ for committing Kidnapping as follows: <br />
<blockquote>On April 26, 1917, soon after the United States entered World War I, the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) called a strike of copper miners in Cochise County, Arizona. On July 12, 1917, the county sheriff led a posse that rounded up and deported over 1,000 members of the IWW. One of the posse was brought to trial on charges of kidnapping. He offered to prove that the strikers were trying to obstruct the war, had stored up a large amount of ammunition, and had threatened citizens; that help from federal troops had been sought to no avail; and that the leader of the local strike had told the sheriff he could no longer control his men. On these facts, he asserted the defense of necessity.<br />
<br />
The judge recognized the defense. He ruled that evidence of necessity could be excluded only if it were completely inadequate as a matter of law to establish the defense, and that the weight and sufficiency of the evidence were for the jury to decide—even in a case which “aroused great public interest.”<br />
<br />
The jury heard the evidence, deliberated for fifteen minutes, and returned a verdict of “Not Guilty” on the first ballot.</blockquote><br />
In <b><i>Surocco v. Geary</i></b>, 3 Cal. 69 (1853), a large fire threatened the unburned half of the then small town of San Francisco. A public officer ordered the destruction of houses to create a firebreak and was subsequently sued by one of the owners. On appeal, the California Supreme Court held that the action was proper because:<br />
<br />
The right to destroy property, to prevent the spread of a conflagration, has been traced to the highest law of necessity, and the natural rights of man, independent of society and the civil government. "It is referred by moralists and jurists as the same great principle which justifies the exclusive appropriation of a plank in a shipwreck, though the life of another be sacrificed; with the throwing overboard goods in a tempest, for the safety of the vessel; with the trespassing upon the lands of another, to escape death by an enemy. It rests upon the maxim, Necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura private." [Necessity leads to privileges because of private justice].<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Civil Disobedience Political Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
According to <b>Civil Disobedience and the Necessity Defence</b>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>[If] the [necessity] defense is allowed, the jury is called upon to weigh controversial political issues and to function as the “conscience of the community.” “Reflected in the jury’s decision is a judgment of whether, under all the circumstances of the event and in the light of all known about the defendant, the prohibited act, if committed, deserves condemnation by the law.” In cases where judges have been persuaded to allow the necessity defense, juries have, often enough, delivered not guilty verdicts.<br />
<br />
[..] When judges have allowed the necessity defense to go to a jury in civil disobedience cases, more often than not the defendants are acquitted. There are a number of cases in which charges were dropped after the judge announced that the necessity defense would be permitted. </blockquote><br />
In <b><i>State v. Mouer</i></b> (Columbia Co. Dist. Ct., Dec. 12-16, 1977), dozens of protestors in Oregon who were conducting a civil disobedience sit-in at a nuclear power plant were arrested and charged with criminal trespass. At trial, the judge allowed the defendants to raise the state necessity defense (called the choice of evils defense) and the defendants were acquitted by the jury.<br />
<br />
In <b><i>People v. Brown</i></b> (Lake County, Jan. 1979), protesters in Illinois blocked the entrance to a nuclear power plant and were charged with criminal trespass. Relying on the defense of necessity, they argued that they had not created the situation that they had sought to correct and had reasonably believed that their conduct was necessary to avoid the harm of a nuclear accident. A doctor testified for the defense about the damaging effects of low-level radiation. All of the defendants were subsequently acquitted.<br />
<br />
In <b><i>People v. Block</i></b> (Galt Judicial Dist., Sacramento Co. Mun. Ct., Aug. 14, 1979), eleven California protestors were charged with trespass and resisting arrest in connection with a March 31, 1979 demonstration at the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant. The defendants had climbed over a fence and staged a sit-in on the grounds of the plant. At trial, the judge allowed the necessity defense to be presented to the jury. “After seven weeks of trial, nine of the defendants received a split jury verdict and one was acquitted, apparently because he had a long history of activism and had convinced the jury that he had exhausted all legal means to stop the harm” posed by the power plant. The cases against those defendants who received a split jury verdict were eventually dropped.<br />
<br />
In <b><i>California v. Lemnitzer</i></b>, No. 27106E (Pleasanton-Livermore Mun. Ct. Feb. 1, 1982) the trial of a protestor who condemned the development of nuclear weapons at the Lawrence Livermore Lab in California ended in a hung jury after the court allowed the presentation of evidence supporting the necessity defense. On retrial, the protestor, John Lemnitzer, was acquitted.<br />
<br />
In <b><i>Vermont v. Keller</i></b>, No. 1372-4-84-CNCR (Vt. Dist. Ct. Nov. 17, 1984) protestors staged a sit-in at the Vermont office of United States Senator Robert Stafford in an effort to get a public meeting about American policy in Central America. These actions resulted in their arrest on trespass charges. At trial, the court allowed the defendants to raise the defenses of necessity, international law, including the Nuremberg principles, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court allowed a number of impressive experts to testify about human rights atrocities in El Salvador and Nicaragua, as well as the important role of protest in American foreign policy. The defendants further testified they had attempted “every reasonable manner to communicate” with the Senator. The jury acquitted all of the defendants.<br />
<br />
In <b><i>Michigan v. Jones et al.</i></b>, Nos. 83-101194-101228 (Oakland County Dist. Ct. 1984) the State of Michigan held nine separate trials prosecuting fifty-one defendants who blocked access to a plant where cruise missile engines were being manufactured. The defendants were charged with trespass, disturbing the peace, blocking access, and conspiracy. In a trial where the necessity defense was allowed, the jury acquitted the defendants of all charges except failure to obey a traffic officer. In other cases where the necessity defense was allowed, the juries acquitted the defendants on all charges. In trials where the judge did not allow necessity defenses, the defendants were convicted on several counts.<br />
<br />
In <b><i>Michigan v. Largrou</i></b>, Nos. 85-000098, 99, 100, 102 (Oakland County Dist. Ct. 1985), three protestors at a Michigan cruise missile plant were charged in 1985 with trespass and criminal damage to a fence. The court found that although the defendants willfully violated the law, they did so without malice and for the public purpose of protest. All three were acquitted.<br />
<br />
In <b><i>People v. Jarka</i></b>, Nos. 002170, 002196-002212, 00214, 00236, 00238 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Apr. 15, 1985), an Illinois jury acquitted twenty defendants who protested against the American military invasion of Central America by conducting a sit-in which blocked the road to the Great Lakes Naval Training Center. The protestors successfully invoked the doctrine of necessity and were allowed to put eight expert witnesses on the stand to offer evidence of the effect of nuclear weapons, American intervention in Central America, and international law. The trial judge gave the jury an instruction that stated that the threat and use of nuclear weapons violated international law.<br />
<br />
In <b><i>Chicago v. Streeter</i></b>, Nos. 85-108644, 48, 49, 51, 52, 120323, 26, 27 (Cir. Ct., Cook County Ill. May 1985), a jury was faced with eight protestors who were charged with trespass for refusing to leave the office of the South African consul. The jury was allowed to hear expert evidence about the defense of necessity and international crimes committed by the apartheid policies of South Africa. It took the jury two and a half hours to acquit the defendants.<br />
<br />
In <b><i>Washington v. Heller</i></b> (Seattle Mun. Ct. 1985), eight doctors were charged with trespassing for protests staged on the porch of the home of the South African consul. They were allowed to raise the defense of necessity and admit expert testimony about the medical and other effects of apartheid. The Seattle jury acquitted after little more than an hour and made a post-trial statement supporting anti-apartheid protests. <br />
<br />
In <b><i>Colorado v. Bock</i></b> (Denver County Ct. June 12, 1985), twenty-two Pledge of Resistance members were charged with trespass for occupying the office of a United States Senator from Colorado to protest American policy in Central America. The jurors, who were allowed to hear evidence of necessity, were instructed that the defendants could use civil disobedience only as an “emergency measure to avoid imminent public or private injury” but that the injury did not have to be directed against the defendants. The jury acquitted all of the defendants.<br />
<br />
In <b><i>Massachusetts v. Carter</i></b>, No. 86-45 CR 7475 (Hampshire Dist. Ct. 1987), the daughter of former President Jimmy Carter, Amy Carter, was arrested with fifty-nine others and charged with trespass and disorderly conduct at Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) recruitment activities on the campus of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. The fifteen defendants were allowed to present evidence to support the necessity defense, international law, and the Nuremberg principles. The defendants argued that the crimes they committed were of far lesser harm than those being committed by the CIA in Central America and offered testimony by a former contra leader and former CIA and government officials. The judge instructed the jury that they could acquit the defendants if they concluded that the defendants acted out of a belief that their protest would help stop the clear and immediate threat of public harm. The jury acquitted them in three hours.<br />
<br />
In <b><i>Washington v. Bass</i></b>, Nos. 4750-038, -395 to -400 (Thurston County Dist. Ct. April 8, 1987), several dozen students of Evergreen State College sat in the Washington State Capitol in support of an anti-apartheid disinvestment bill. Seven students refused orders to leave and were arrested and charged with trespass and disorderly conduct. At their trial, the defendants were allowed to admit statistical and expert evidence of necessity, international law, and the Nuremberg defense about the situation in South Africa. The jury acquitted all of the defendants.<br />
<br />
In <b><i>Illinois v. Fish</i></b> (Skokie Cir. Ct. Aug. 1987) twenty-six people were arrested for trespassing at the Arlington Heights Army Reserve Training Center. The trial court allowed the jury to hear evidence about the necessity defense. All of the defendants were acquitted.<br />
<br />
In <b><i>State v. McMillan</i></b>, No. D 00518 (San Luis Obispo Jud. Dist. Mun. Ct., Cal. Oct. 13, 1987), fourteen protestors blockaded Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant to prevent the loading of fuel rods. The trial judge allowed fourteen expert witnesses to offer testimony about related potential harm for the area and allowed the defendants to testify about their own related fears. The judge applied the necessity defense and acquitted the defendants.<br />
<br />
In 1988, a North Carolina court acquitted two Tuscarora Indians of charges in connection with their taking of twenty hostages at the office of a local newspaper to protest the alleged corruption of county officials. <br />
<br />
In <b><i>Massachusetts v. Schaeffer-Duffy</i></b> (Worcester Dist. Ct. 1989), five defendants tried to pass out leaflets to employees at a GTE nuclear weapons facility and prayed outside the building when they were denied entry. The judge denied the prosecutor’s motion in limine to prevent evidence of necessity. The jury was allowed to hear the defendants’ testimony about their personal efforts to stop nuclear weapons and their religious beliefs, and expert testimony about the threats of the MX missile, religious teachings against nuclear weapons, and the historical effectiveness of civil disobedience. The jury acquitted the defendants of trespass.<br />
<br />
In 1990, in Omaha, Nebraska, a jury acquitted seventeen anti-abortion protestors because of the necessity defense. The trial judge relied on the defense to overturn the trespassing convictions of an additional eighteen defendants. <br />
<br />
IN <b><i>West Valley City v. Hirshi</i></b>, No. 891003031-3 MC (Salt Lake County, Ut. Cir. Ct., W. Valley Dept. 1990), protestors were charged with criminal trespass after entering property on which Trident II nuclear missile engines were being manufactured in Salt Lake City. The trial judge permitted evidence and instructed the jury on defenses based on necessity, international law, the First Amendment, and the Nuremberg Principles. The jury acquitted the defendants.<br />
<br />
In <b><i>People v. Gray</i></b>, 571 N.Y.S.2d 851, 861-62 (N.Y. Crim. Ct.1991), a two-day bench trial resulted in the acquittal of six protestors for disorderly conduct because of the necessity defense. The protestors had blocked traffic in Manhattan to protest the opening of a bike and pedestrian lane to vehicular traffic. Judge Laura Safer-Espinoza issued a forty-two page decision reviewing dozens of decisions involving the necessity defense and provided the most extensive judicial overview of the necessity defense in state courts to date.<br />
<br />
In 1991, a Chicago jury acquitted a Catholic priest of criminal charges for damage to the inner-city neighborhood where he was pastor after he admitted painting over three tobacco- and alcohol-related billboards. The defendant argued he should not be convicted because of the necessity defense. The jury deliberated ninety minutes before acquitting the defendant. <br />
<br />
In 1993, a jury acquitted a Chicago AIDS activist charged with illegally supplying clean needles because of the necessity defense. <br />
<br />
In <b><i>California v. Halem</i></b>, No. 135842 (Berkeley Mun. Ct. 1991), the jury came to the same conclusion after hearing evidence that dispensing clean needles without a prescription, though illegal, was necessary to protect people from the spread of the AIDS virus.<br />
<br />
In <b><i>Washington v. Brown</i></b>, No. 85-1295N (Kitsap County Dist. Ct. N. 1985), twenty-four protestors held a vigil in Washington State in protest of a “white train” carrying nuclear weapons. The state arrested twenty of the protestors and charged them with criminal trespass and conspiracy. The defendants filed extensive briefs on the right to present particular defenses to the jury, in support of their motion to dismiss conspiracy charges, and in opposition to the government’s motion in limine. The judge dismissed the conspiracy charges and did not admit evidence on the necessity defense, but it did allow Daniel Ellsberg to testify as an expert on why first-strike nuclear warheads on a train are a potential threat to peace. One defendant pled guilty to both charges. The jury acquitted the remaining nineteen defendants.<br />
<br />
In <b><i>Washington v. Karon</i></b>, No. J85-1136-39 (Benton County Dist. Ct. 1985), four defendants blockaded a federal Plutonium-Uranium extraction facility at Hanford Nuclear Reservation. They were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct and failure to disperse. The defendants filed motions in limine to raise necessity, Nuremberg principles, and the Geneva and Hague Conventions as defenses. The trial judge allowed Nuremberg and necessity defenses, permitted expert testimony regarding radiation contamination, and refused expert testimony regarding nuclear war. The court agreed to give international law instructions to the jury. Immediately after the court ruling permitting scientists to testify on radiation contamination, the prosecution moved to dismiss the case and the court granted the motion.<br />
<br />
In <b><i>United States v. Braden</i></b> (W.D. Ky. 1985), twenty-nine demonstrators entered the office of a United States senator as part of the Pledge of Resistance. At their arraignment, the defendants announced their intent to use Nuremberg, necessity, and First Amendment defenses (freedom of speech includes freedom to be heard; today the only way to be heard is to act). The government dropped all charges prior to trial.<br />
<br />
In <b><i>California v. Jerome</i></b>, Nos. 5450895, 5451038, 5516177, 5516159 (Livermore-Pleasanton Mun. Ct., Alameda County, Traffic Div. 1987), more than thirty protestors blocked the main gate to the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab in a nonviolent sit-in. They were arrested for traffic offenses of blocking and delaying traffic. The Traffic Commissioner agreed to consider expert testimony on the necessity defense and international law (including Nuremberg Principles, Geneva Protocols, and the Hague Convention) via affidavits. The defendants filed affidavits for Daniel Ellsberg (on the effectiveness of nonviolent protests in arousing citizen action), Frank Newman (on international law) and Charles Schwartz (on the role of Livermore Lab in promoting the arms race). Before trial, the judge granted the prosecution’s request to drop all charges.<br />
<br />
I would appreciate it if you could provide the answers to my questions: <br />
<br />
1. Why did Defence Counsel not demand Prosecutor Engh and Holden provide reasons for their refusal to address Breivik’s claim of necessity? <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
3. In Norwegian Law upon which party does the Onus of Proof lie in a claim of necessity?<br />
<br />
4. Is there some political correct conformity conspiracy between Defence Counsel and Prosecution to ignore Breivik’s claims of necessity? <br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120812_glipp-necessity?mode=window&viewMode=singlePage">PDF</a>]</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-28679421440338723312012-08-01T03:45:00.000-07:002012-08-22T03:48:49.372-07:00Correspondence: Supervisory Committee of Judges: Re: Complaints: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl<div align="justify"><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Correspondence: Supervisory Committee of Judges: Re: Complaints: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;"></span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 01 August 2012</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/search/label/*%20Complaints%3A%20Judicial%20Ethics"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3cQbub1vLJmQzNrTopLHes2WQlkW9L8SroDki9QnL1yiALOigZrg2OgrBAcq93A0nRk9IkpEp7KPEHJbekUw1b22KjYrSegpm9dNXoW3DXZ8vMwARwkGu9z8a75z3PMsXSq-8MSbeJQw/s1600/ParlOmbudsman_NOpsahl-WArntzen-TSchei_327x498.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 498px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 327px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 95%;">Complaint to Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges:<br />
<br />
On 30 May 2012 complainant filed three complaints with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges against respectively: (1) <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/complaint-against-chief-justice-tore_30.html">Judge Tore Schei</a>, (2) <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/complaint-against-judge-wenche.html">Judge Wenche Arntzen</a> and (3) <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/complaint-against-judge-nina-opsahl_30.html">Judge Nina Opsahl</a>. <br />
<br />
On 06 June 2012 complainant noted that she had not yet received any information detailing the process and procedure for her complaints, and additionally provided the completed signed “Skjema for klage på dommere til Tilsynsutvalget for dommere (TU)” forms for her complaints.<br />
<br />
On 02 July 2012 complainant noted: “I am still waiting for the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, to provide me with a Case and/or Reference Number for my complaint/s, including details about processing of my complaint/s in Norway v. Breivik matter against respectively: (1) Judge Nina Opsahl, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Chief Justice Tore Schei.”<br />
<br />
On 04 July 2012 complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/07/complaint-to-parliamentary-ombudsman.html">filed a complaint with the Parliamentary Ombudsman</a>: Slow Case Processing or Failure to Provide Case Processing by Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges<br />
<br />
On 11 July Parliamentary Ombudsman responded (Ref: 2012/1943). On 20 July I <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/07/parl-ombudsman-case-2012-1943-slow-case.html">recontacted</a> the Supervisory Committee to provide me with a Case and/or Reference Number for my complaint/s, by 27 July 2012.<br />
<br />
On 31 July the Supervisory Committee of Judges responded, to which I responded.<br />
</span></blockquote><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJZPj_1SWXWvyLlmRAgy0CECpSqhbfzctqlXhs97tHB4maoYbOMEvkQ9wg8GGeJtrggM9CDTSYcuf0w6P8PMn3xY-0nr91BulyjINw0y0Hspz-SGwc5NgHa1VtgcBwZpc3PRRkdJ8Mrs/s1600/NorwayVBreivik_FleurdeLis_MargaretHagen_556x119.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div><br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Correspondence: Supervisory Committee of Judges: Re: Complaints: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl </span></span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<br />
<blockquote>From: Domstol Administrasjonen: Eiken, Espen <br />
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:46 AM<br />
To: 'jmcswan@mweb.co.za'<br />
<b>Subject: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl</b><br />
<br />
We refer to your three complaints to the Supervisory Committee for Judges (Tilsynsutvalget for dommere).<br />
<br />
Your complaints will be handled according to our standard procedure. According to our standard procedure we don’t send a confirmation letter to inform that we have received a complaint. Each complaint will be given a case number. The average handling time for the Supervisory Committee has lately been up to six months.<br />
<br />
On behalf of the Supervisory Committee for Judges <br />
Espen Eiken<br />
Senior Adviser<br />
<br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 3px; margin: 05px auto 0px; text-align: center; width: 323px;" /><br />
<br />
<br />
From: Lara Johnstone<br />
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 1:28 AM<br />
To: 'Eiken, Espen'<br />
Cc: Judge Wenche Arntzen; Judge Nina Opsahl; Ch.Justice Tore Schei <br />
<b>Subject: RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl</b><br />
<br />
Ms. Eiken,<br />
Supervisory Committee for Judges<br />
<br />
Many thanks for your correspondence dated 31 July 2012. <br />
<br />
I am a little unclear as to a few issues in your correspondence: <br />
<br />
<b>1. Committee does not Acknowledge Receipt of Complaints</b><br />
<br />
I am confused: Is the Committee deliberately or negligently ignorant that it's behaviour contradicts its alleged goals of encouraging confidence in the courts?[1]. If the Committee is unable to identify very basic common sense unethical conduct in its own procedures (namely to professionally acknowledge receipt of any complaint to inform a complainant of the complaints procedures); is such behaviour not conducive to undermining confidence in the Committee's work; and consequently in the broader role of the court system? <br />
<br />
<b>2. Standard Procedure: </b><br />
<br />
Your brochure states: "The proceedings are in writing. All parties involved are informed and are given an opportunity to make a statement. When the case is ready for hearing – after all parties have made their statements – this takes place at a meeting which all the Committee members attend. Complaints are generally dealt with on the basis of written statements. But the parties are entitled to make verbal statements to the Supervisory Committee, unless the Committee should consider this as obviously unnecessary to the elucidation of the case. In special cases, it may be relevant to obtain statements from others, examine witnesses, etc."<br />
<br />
It is unclear from aforementioned procedures, whether all parties statements are public statements provided to all parties? <br />
<br />
My complaints were filed on 06 June 2012, with a follow-up enquiry on 02 July, with no response whatsoever from the Committee until 31 July 2012, subsequent to complaints filed with the Parliamentary Ombudsman. <br />
<br />
Can you please clarify; so that I am crystal clear about the Committee's process, and can continue these proceedings with confidence in the Committee's impartial objectivity and professionalism: <br />
<br />
1. It will take six months for me to be issued a case number? <br />
2. Or, it will take six months to complete the complaint enquiry? <br />
<br />
Or put differently; how long should I wait for a professional response from the Committee, before concluding that -- like Norwegian Judges, Prosecutors, Police and Editors -- the Committee just ignores politically incorrect complaints, as if the people who file such complaints simply do not exist? <br />
<br />
Respectfully,<br />
<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/">http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/</a><br />
<br />
[1] <a href="http://www.domstol.no/no/Enkelt-domstol/Tilsynsutvalget-for-dommere/Om-Tilsynsutvalget/">Committee's Purpose</a>:<br />
The Supervisory Committee's most important guideline is to work to identify factors that are likely to undermine confidence in the courts. This work requires three important considerations must be weighed against each other: For the courts to function appropriately in society must be turned down on the factors that contribute to doubt that judges act on the basis of appropriate judicial conduct. That ethical standards that support and develop confidence in the courts as independent, impartial and competent public institutions for conflict resolution.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/search/label/*%20Complaints%3A%20Judicial%20Ethics">Complaints: Judicial Ethics</a>]</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-75748151079199972592012-07-31T03:08:00.000-07:002012-08-01T03:45:42.499-07:00PFU Press Complaint: News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'<div align="justify"><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">PFU Press Complaint: News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">The prosecutor’s irregular decisions to ‘refuse to touch Breivik’s invocation of Necessity’ does not: (a) have the power to nullify Breivik’s invocation of necessity; (b) grant the court the authority to ‘refuse to touch Breivik’s invocation of necessity’; (c) grant the media the authority to find Mr. Breivik ‘guilty’ in a ‘trial by media ignorance of the law’.</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 31 July 2012</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/search/label/Complaints%3A%20PFU%3A%20Nina%20Berglund"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjISn-VO7Xt5Jy1fgWcgUmpPREq_bvSCoz-eF1G2UVBl3flzY5Moj1DJkpqGTln1_WV-nNg09OciQixa2aAflEgGwpYKaSsCQ_5v5fC6ggjzc3ixgwsBu6IXqSNHnlrkKvN31OB5KvU8XA/s1600/PFU_NinaBerglund_BreivikGuiltInnocence_323x470.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 470px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 323px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 95%;">Glanville Williams expressed the necessity doctrine this way: “[S]ome acts that would otherwise be wrong are rendered rightful by a good purpose, or by the necessity of choosing the lesser of two evils.” He offers this example: <br />
<br />
“Suppose that a dike threatens to give way, and the actor is faced with the choice of either making a breach in the dike, which he knows will result in one or two people being drowned, or doing nothing, in which case he knows that the dike will burst at another point involving a whole town in sudden destruction. In such a situation, where there is an unhappy choice between the destruction of one life and the destruction of many, utilitarian philosophy would certainly justify the actor in preferring the lesser evil.”<br />
<br />
In <i><b>United States v. Holmes</b></i>, 26 F. Cas. 360 (E.D. Pa. 1842) (No. 15,383), Holmes was involved in a shipwreck, where the crew were charged with manslaughter for throwing sixteen passengers overboard in a frantic attempt to lighten a sinking lifeboat. The Prosecutor argued the passengers should be protected at all costs, whereas the Defence placed the jurors in the sinking lifeboat with the defendant. The Defendant was found guilty, but the jurors requested leniency, to which the court complied by sentencing the defendant to six months in prison and a fine of twenty dollars. <br />
<br />
The following reports indicate that Prosecutor Engh and Holden violated their duty of objectivity in terms of (a) impartially enquiring into and/or responding to the Accuseds’ Defence; and (b) providing the court with the Prosecution’s evaluation and conclusion of the evidence for and against Breivik’s invocation of his Necessity Defence.<br />
<br />
In her closing statement, Prosecutor Engh acknowledge’s that:<br />
<br />
(1) Norwegian prosecutors have a duty to conduct their investigation with objectivity; <br />
(2) Norwegian law allows for an accused to plead to necessity and/or self defence, <br />
(3) Where an accused does invoke necessity, it is the court and prosecutor’s duty to investigate the accused’s necessity defence arguments and evidence; <br />
(4) If an accused successfully invokes a necessity defence, this can and must result in either mitigation of sentence and/or a verdict of innocence;<br />
(5) Breivik invoked the defence of necessity;<br />
(6) Despite the fact that Breivik invoked the necessity defence, both Prosecutor Engh and Holden ‘refuse to touch the principle of necessity’. </span></blockquote><a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJZPj_1SWXWvyLlmRAgy0CECpSqhbfzctqlXhs97tHB4maoYbOMEvkQ9wg8GGeJtrggM9CDTSYcuf0w6P8PMn3xY-0nr91BulyjINw0y0Hspz-SGwc5NgHa1VtgcBwZpc3PRRkdJ8Mrs/s1600/NorwayVBreivik_FleurdeLis_MargaretHagen_556x119.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div><br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">PFU Press Complaint: News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'</span></span></strong> </blockquote></div><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Press Complaints Commission (PFU)<br />
Box 46 Sentrum, 0101 Oslo<br />
<br />
CC: Editor: Nina Berglund<br />
News and Views from Norway<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Complaint against Nina Berglund, Editor: News & Views from Norway: Violation of 3.1, 3.2, 4.5 of Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press in Article: Breivik Moved to New Prison </span></span></strong><br />
<br />
Please Note: Attached is a letter submitted to Mr. Anders Breivik, via his Legal Representatives: Lippestad Attorneys, requesting his consent, related to the arguments made in this complaint. <br />
<br />
This complaint relates to the following statement made by Ms. Berglund in her article: <b><a href="http://www.newsinenglish.no/2012/07/24/breivik-moved-to-new-prison/">Breivik Moved to New Prison</a></b>:<br />
<blockquote>Breivik’s trial ended in late June and <b><u>his guilt was established long ago</u></b>, but the court will rule on whether he’s sane and able to be sentenced to prison, or whether he’s insane and must be committed to psychiatric care instead.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Code of Ethics: 3.1: No Source for Alleged Facts </span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<blockquote>The source of information must, as a rule, be identified, unless this conflicts with source protection or consideration for a third party.</blockquote><br />
Ms. Berglund does not identify her source of information that confirmed that Mr. Breivik’s ‘guilt was established long ago’, to clarify whom exactly established Mr. Breivik’s guilt, according to what legal – innocent until proven guilty - procedures?<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Code of Ethics: 3.2: Inaccurate Information. </span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Be critical in the choice of sources, and make sure that the information provided is correct. It is good press practice to aim for diversity and relevance in the choice of sources. If anonymous sources are used, or the publication is offered exclusivity, especially stringent requirements must be imposed on the critical evaluation of the sources. Particular caution should be exercised when dealing with information from anonymous sources, information from sources offering exclusivity, and information provided from sources in return for payment.</blockquote><br />
It is my allegation that Ms. Berglund’s statement that Mr. Breivik’s ‘guilt was established long ago’ is not factually or legally correct. <br />
<br />
The evidence I herewith argue shows that only persons who (A) are totally ignorant of objectively applying the principles of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in accordance to rules of evidence and due process; and/or (B) endorse the denial of the principles of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in accordance to rules of evidence and due process to Mr. Breivik; could make the statement that: Breivik has been found guilty in a court of law.<br />
<br />
On 16 April 2012, Ms. Berglund wrote the following in <b><a href="http://www.newsinenglish.no/2012/04/16/terror-trial-gets-underway-in-oslo/">Terror trial gets underway in Oslo</a></b>. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>When asked by Arntzen whether he would plead guilty to all or any of the charges, <b>Breivik</b> responded by saying he <b>acknowledged the factual evidence but <u>declared himself innocent of punishable crimes, adding that he acted out of necessity and could justify his attacks</u></b>.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<b>Oslo Court: Breivik Defence of Necessity:</b><br />
<br />
On 17 April 2012, the Oslo Court <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/Oslotingrett/status/192198581803945984">tweeted</a> to Journalists attending the Breivik trial:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Wrong translation in the 22-7 trial yesterday: Breivik said "nodrett", Correct translation: "Principle of Necessity", not "self defence". </blockquote><br />
The principle of Necessity is enshrined in Norwegian Law in Section 47 of the Penal Code (<a href="http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/lov-19020522-010-eng.pdf">PDF</a>): <br />
<br />
<blockquote>"No person may be punished for any act that he has committed in order to save someone's person or property from an otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the damage that might be caused by his act."</blockquote><br />
<br />
<b>The Necessity Defence:</b><br />
<br />
<blockquote>The rationale of the necessity defense is not that a person, when faced with the pressure of circumstances of nature, lacks the mental element which the crime in question requires. Rather, it is this reason of public policy: the law ought to promote the achievement of higher values at the expense of lesser values, and sometimes the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law. (WAYNE R. LAFAVE, CRIMINAL LAW, § 5.4, at 477 (3d ed. 2000))</blockquote><br />
The principle of the necessity defence is rooted in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law">common law</a> and any accused pleading to necessity argues that their actions were justified or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants who plead to necessity – whether common law necessity, political necessity (civil disobedience) or military necessity - argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as being criminal, because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm. <br />
<br />
Most common law and civil law jurisdictions recognize this defense, but only under limited circumstances. Generally, the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence) that (a) the harm he sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct he is charged with; (b) he had no reasonable alternative; (c) he ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) he did not himself create the danger he sought to avoid.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>[..]The doctrine of necessity, with its inevitable weighing of choices of evil, holds that certain conduct, though it violates the law and produces harm, is justified because it averts a greater evil and hence produces a net social gain or benefit to society. Glanville Williams expressed the necessity doctrine this way: “[S]ome acts that would otherwise be wrong are rendered rightful by a good purpose, or by the necessity of choosing the lesser of two evils.” He offers this example:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Suppose that a dike threatens to give way, and the actor is faced with the choice of either making a breach in the dike, which he knows will result in one or two people being drowned, or doing nothing, in which case he knows that the dike will burst at another point involving a whole town in sudden destruction. In such a situation, where there is an unhappy choice between the destruction of one life and the destruction of many, utilitarian philosophy would certainly justify the actor in preferring the lesser evil. </blockquote></blockquote><br />
<br />
<b>Military Necessity and International Humanitarian Law: </b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/military-necessity/">Crimes of War</a> and <a href="http://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=888">Diakona</a>: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Military necessity is a legal concept used in international humanitarian law (IHL) as part of the legal justification for attacks on legitimate military targets that may have adverse, even terrible, consequences for civilians and civilian objects. It means that military forces in planning military actions are permitted to take into account the practical requirements of a military situation at any given moment and the imperatives of winning. The concept of military necessity acknowledges that even under the laws of war, winning the war or battle is a legitimate consideration, though it must be put alongside other considerations of IHL.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<b>Prosecutor Engh and Holden ‘Refuse to touch Breivik’s Principle of Necessity’: </b><br />
<br />
The following reports indicate that Prosecutor Engh and Holden violated their duty of objectivity in terms of (a) impartially enquiring into and/or responding to the Accuseds’ Defence; and (b) providing the court with the Prosecution’s evaluation and conclusion of the evidence for and against Breivik’s invocation of his Necessity Defence.<br />
<br />
In her closing statement, Prosecutor Engh acknowledge’s that:<br />
<br />
(1) Norwegian prosecutors have a duty to conduct their investigation with objectivity; <br />
(2) Norwegian law allows for an accused to plead to necessity and/or self defence, <br />
(3) Where an accused does invoke necessity, it is the court and prosecutor’s duty to investigate the accused’s necessity defence arguments and evidence; <br />
(4) If an accused successfully invokes a necessity defence, this can and must result in either mitigation of sentence and/or a verdict of innocence;<br />
(5) Breivik invoked the defence of necessity;<br />
(6) Despite the fact that Breivik invoked the necessity defence, both Prosecutor Engh and Holden ‘refuse to touch the principle of necessity’.<br />
<br />
<b>Document.NO: <a href="http://www.document.no/2012/06/inga-bejer-engh-prosedyre-del-i/">Inga Bejer Engh Procedure Part I (Inga Bejer Engh Procedure Part I)</a></b> <br />
<br />
</blockquote><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" style="width: 600px;"><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top" width="300"><span style="font-size: 90%;">I Norge har vi fire vilkår for at noen kan straffes<br />
<br />
Det må foreligge en handling som rammes av et straffebestemmelse, det må ikke foreligge nødrett, det må foreligge subjektiv skyld og gjerningsmannen må ha vært tilregnelig.<br />
<br />
Jeg vil i min prosedyre ta opp faktum, min kollega vil ta opp tilregnelighet. Ingen av oss vil berøre nødrett. Til tross for at det var det han påberopte seg.</span></td><td valign="top" width="300"><span style="font-size: 90%;">In Norway, we have four conditions that someone can be punished<br />
<br />
There must be an act within the scope of a criminal provision, there must be no necessity, there must be subjective guilt and the perpetrator must have been sane.<br />
<br />
I want my procedure to record the fact, my colleague will address accountability. None of us will touch the principle of necessity. Despite the fact that it was what he claimed.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><blockquote><br />
<b>NRK: <a href="http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/rettssaken---dag-42-1.8216159">Rettssaken - dag 42 (The trial - day 42)</a></b> <br />
<br />
</blockquote><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" style="width: 600px;"><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top" width="300"><span style="font-size: 90%;">kl. 12.15<br />
Engh: - I Norge har vi fire vilkår som må foreligge for at noen kan straffes: det må foreligge objektiv sett en handling som rammmes av et straffebud i straffeloven, det må ikke foreligge nødverge eller nødrett, og det må forligge subjektiv skyld hos gjerningsmannen.<br />
</span></td><td valign="top" width="300"><span style="font-size: 90%;">at. 12.15<br />
Engh: - In Norway, we have four conditions that must exist that someone can be punished: it must be objectively seen an act rammmes of a penal provision in criminal law, there must be no self-defense or necessity, and it must forligge subjective guilt of the perpetrator.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><blockquote><br />
<b>VG: <a href="http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/22-juli/rettssaken/artikkel.php?artid=10066042">Ord-for-ord - dag 42 prosedyren til aktoratet (Word-for-word - day 42 procedure for prosecutors)</a></b><br />
<br />
</blockquote><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" style="width: 600px;"><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top" width="300"><span style="font-size: 90%;">Nå skal jeg gå over til å si litt om hvordan vi har delt inn prosedyren, slik at det skal være lettere å følge I Norge har vi fire vilkår for at noen skal kunne straffes. Disse vilkårene vil danne grunnlaget for strafferammen. Fir det første må det foreligge en handling som rammes av et straffebud i straffeloven.<br />
<br />
- For det andre må det ikke foreligge nødverge eller nødrett. For det tredje må det foreligge subjektiv skyld hos gjerningsmannen. Og sist, men ikke minst det vanskeligste: gjerningsmannen må ha vært tilregnelig når han begikk de straffbare handlingene. Jeg vil i min del av prosedyren går gjennom del én og tre. Og gå gjennom de lovbrudd som er gjenstand for vurderiung. Min kollega Holden vil ta for seg spørsmål om tiltalte er tilregnelig eller ikke, om vilkåret er tilstede.<br />
<br />
- Når det gjelder villkår nummer 2, nødrett eller nødverge. Hverken jeg eller Holden vil berøre temaet nærmere. Dette til tross for at tiltalte påberopte seg dette for sin frifinnelse.</span></td> <td valign="top" width="300"><span style="font-size: 90%;">Now I'll go over to say something about how we have divided the procedure, so it will be easier to follow Norway has four conditions for someone to be punished. These terms will form the basis for the penalty. Fir the first there must be an act within the scope of a penal provision in criminal law.<br />
<br />
- Second, there must be no self-defense or necessity. Thirdly, there must be subjective guilt of the perpetrator. And last but not least, the most difficult: the perpetrator must have been sane when he committed the offenses. I want my part of the procedure goes through part one and three. And go through the offenses that are subject to vurderiung. My colleague Holden will address the question whether the defendant is sane or not, whether the condition is present.<br />
<br />
- When it comes to Conditions No. 2, necessity or self-defense. Neither I nor Holden will touch the topic further. This despite the fact that the defendant claimed that for his acquittal.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><blockquote><br />
<b>NRK: <a href="http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/rettssaken---dag-43-1.8218343">Rettssaken - dag 43 (The Trial – Day 43)</a></b><br />
<br />
</blockquote><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" style="width: 600px;"><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top" width="300"><span style="font-size: 90%;">kl. 09.10<br />
Lippestad: - Spørsmålet som tiltalte har reist, er om det finnes straffefrihetsgrunner. Han sa innledningsvis at han påberopte seg nødrett.<br />
<br />
kl. 09.29<br />
Lippestad: - Så kommer jeg til å se på metodebruk og drøfte litt av de andre sakkyndige som har vært inne i saken. Så kommer helt kort litt om nødrett og til slutt litt om forvaring.<br />
<br />
kl. 10.21<br />
Bistandsadvokat John Christian Elden til NRK i pausen: – Jeg synes prosedyren er god fordi den fokuserer på det som er interessant for retten. Lippestad har sagt han ikke vil bruke så mye tid på nødrett og frifinnelse, men argumenterer tilregnelighetsspørsmålet. <br />
<br />
kl. 11.28<br />
Lippestad: - Helt kort til slutt, og av rent formalistiske grunner: Breivik sa selv at han skjønner at han blir starffet for disse handlingene, men han påberoper seg av formelle grunner nødrett.<br />
<br />
kl. 14.45<br />
Breivik: - Dommerne som sitter her i dag, kan dømme meg som de selv føler for. Hvis dere velger å anerkjenne min påstand om nødrett, vil dere på en svært effektiv måte sende sjokkbølger til alle de legitime regimer i Europa.<br />
<br />
kl. 14.51<br />
Breivik: - Jeg kan ikke anerkjenne straffeskyld. Jeg påberoper meg nødrett for å ha kjempet for mitt folk, min kultur og mitt land.<br />
<br />
kl. 14.51<br />
Breivik: - Angrepet 22. juli var et preventivt angrep til forsvar for det norske urfolk.<br />
<br />
kl. 14.51<br />
Breivik: - Jeg krever derfor at jeg blir frifunnet for de aktuelle anklager.</span></td><td valign="top" width="300"><span style="font-size: 90%;">at. 09.10<br />
Lippestad: - The question that the defendant has raised is whether there is impunity reasons. He said initially that he invoked the principle of necessity.<br />
<br />
at. 09.29<br />
Lippestad: - So I'm going to look at the methodology and discuss some of the other experts who have been inside the case. Then comes the very short bit about the necessity and finally a little bit about detention.<br />
<br />
at. 10.21<br />
Lawyer John Christian Elden to NRK during the break - I think the procedure is good because it focuses on what is of interest to the court. Lippestad has said he will not spend as much time on the principle of necessity and an acquittal, but argues sane safety issue.<br />
<br />
at. 11.28<br />
Lippestad: - Completely cards at the end, and of pure formalistic reasons: Breivik said that he realizes that he is starffet for these actions, but he invokes the principle of necessity formal reasons.<br />
<br />
at. 14.45<br />
Breivik: - The judges who sit here today, you can judge me as they feel. If you choose to acknowledge my claim of necessity, you will in a very efficient way to send shock waves to all the legitimate regimes in Europe.<br />
<br />
at. 14.51<br />
Breivik: - I can not acknowledge guilt. I claim necessity for having fought for my people, my culture and my country.<br />
<br />
at. 14.51<br />
Breivik: - The attack on 22 July was a preventive attack in defense of the Norwegian Indigenous Peoples.<br />
<br />
at. 14.51<br />
Breivik: - I require that I be acquitted of the charges in question.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><blockquote><br />
<br />
<b>Onus of Proof: Norwegian State or Breivik to Prove Necessity?</b><br />
<br />
In South African law the Onus of Proof lies on the State in a defence of necessity, to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>In <i><b>S v Pretorius 1975</b></i> (2) SA 85 (SWA) Judge AJ Le Grange found that ‘Despite the accused’s plea of guilty, it appears from all the evidence on the record that an offence was not committed. In the result, the conviction and sentence, must, be set aside.’ <br />
<br />
<blockquote>[87] The accused who had no legal representation, referred, despite his plea of guilty, to circumstances which materially gave rise to the defence of necessity. This defence made it necessary for the magistrate to decide in the first instance not what the accused’s frame of mind had been, but whether necessity was present and whether it justified the accused’s conduct. .. The Judge ‘could find no cases and the Court did not refer to any where the question had been finally decided whether the test for necessity relates to an objective emergency or to a subjective frame of mind (or fear)….. <br />
<br />
[88] There is, however, nothing in my humble opinion, in the cases referred to or in any other cases, which I could find, which could serve as authority for the proposition that necessity cannot also be viewed as “a ground of justification”. The question whether the defence of justification amounts to a ground of justification or to a circumstance excluding fault, has been thoroughly canvassed by De Wet and Swanepoel in their said work as well as by Burchell & Hunt in their revised edition of S.A. Criminal Law and Procedure, Part 1…. <br />
<br />
[89] The onus of proof in a defence of necessity as in self-defence rests on the State to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity. It is not for the accused to satisfy the court that she acted from necessity (p 293). [(proceed) by gathering an objective view of the circumstances from the evidence itself, and the magistrate’s finding whether the prevailing circumstances were ‘alarming’ if viewed objectively…. Viewed objectively… was the accused confronted with a situation that …… lives were in danger…. <br />
<br />
[90] [If the evidence gives a picture of threatening danger and fear, which gave rise to necessity and which would have justified the accused’s conduct, provided the accused did not exceed the limits of necessity…. Proceed to consider whether the proven circumstances satisfy the tests for necessity set out by B & Hunt at p. 285 of their work: (a) the threatening disaster endangered the accused’s legal interests. This in fact gave rise to a duty to act. (b) the danger was threatening and imminent. The fact that symptoms relating to the danger may only appear later does not detract from the situation… if it cannot immediately be ascertained whether or not the symptoms are dangerous, necessity arises… (d) the chances that harm would have resulted and it would have been of a serious nature.. the greater the harm, the greater the necessity…</blockquote></blockquote><br />
If Norwegian law also places the Onus of Proof lies on the State in a defence of necessity, to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity; it would appear that the Prosecutor’s decision to ‘refuse to touch the principle of necessity’ should weigh heavily in Breivik’s favour. <br />
<br />
Even if Norwegian law places the Onus of Proof on Breivik in a defence of Necessity, to prove the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity, the Prosecutions decision to ‘refuse to touch the principle of necessity’ should again weigh heavily in Breivik’s favour; unless the Prosecution could and did provide a reasonable argument for their failure to uphold their duty for impartial objectivity to enquire into the evidence for the Defendant’s Necessity defence. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Common Law Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing:</b><br />
<br />
In <i><b>Regina v Dudley and Stephens</b></i> (1884) 14 QBD 273, three crew members and a cabin boy escaped a shipwreck to spend eighteen days on a boat, over 1,000 miles from land, with no water and only two one pound tins of turnips. After four days, they caught and ate a small turtle. That was the only food that they had eaten prior to the twentieth day of being lost at sea. Ultimately, two of the crew members killed the ailing cabin boy and “fed upon the body and blood of the boy for four days.” Four days later, they were rescued. Two of the men were charged with murder. The court found that the cabin boy would likely have died by the time they were rescued and that the crew members, but for their conduct, would probably have died as well. The Queen's Bench Division Judges held that the defendants were guilty of murder in killing the cabin boy and stated that their obvious necessity was no defence. The defendants were sentenced to death, but this was subsequently commuted to six months' imprisonment.<br />
<br />
In <i><b>Spakes v. State</b></i>, 913 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), the Texas Criminal Appeals Court allowed the jury to be instructed on the necessity defense before deliberating the verdict for an inmate whose three cellmates had planned an escape and threatened to slit his throat if he did not accompany them. The defendant inmate argued that because of the terribly violent crimes of which his cellmates had been convicted (one had bragged about chopping his girlfriend up with an ax), it was a necessity that he break the law, by accompanying them in their escape.<br />
<br />
In <i><b>United States v. Ashton</b></i>, 24 F. Cas. 873, 873-74 (C.C.D. Mass 1834) (No. 14,470), sailors prosecuted for mutiny were found not guilty, after arguing the necessity for their mutiny based upon the dangerously leaky ship and that this danger had been concealed from them until after they left port. Circuit Justice Story found them not guilty of mutiny. <br />
<br />
In <i><b>United States v. Holmes</b></i>, 26 F. Cas. 360 (E.D. Pa. 1842) (No. 15,383), Holmes was involved in a shipwreck, where the crew were charged with manslaughter for throwing sixteen passengers overboard in a frantic attempt to lighten a sinking lifeboat. The Prosecutor argued the passengers should be protected at all costs, whereas the Defence placed the jurors in the sinking lifeboat with the defendant. The Defendant was found guilty, but the jurors requested leniency, to which the court complied by sentencing the defendant to six months in prison and a fine of twenty dollars. <br />
<br />
In the 1919 Arizona decision of <i><b>State v. Wooten</b></i>, commonly referred to as the Bisbee Deportation case, Professor Morris describes the acquittal of a Sherrif based upon the ‘necessity’ for committing Kidnapping as follows: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>On April 26, 1917, soon after the United States entered World War I, the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) called a strike of copper miners in Cochise County, Arizona. On July 12, 1917, the county sheriff led a posse that rounded up and deported over 1,000 members of the IWW. One of the posse was brought to trial on charges of kidnapping. He offered to prove that the strikers were trying to obstruct the war, had stored up a large amount of ammunition, and had threatened citizens; that help from federal troops had been sought to no avail; and that the leader of the local strike had told the sheriff he could no longer control his men. On these facts, he asserted the defense of necessity.<br />
<br />
The judge recognized the defense. He ruled that evidence of necessity could be excluded only if it were completely inadequate as a matter of law to establish the defense, and that the weight and sufficiency of the evidence were for the jury to decide—even in a case which “aroused great public interest.”<br />
<br />
The jury heard the evidence, deliberated for fifteen minutes, and returned a verdict of “Not Guilty” on the first ballot.</blockquote><br />
In <i><b>Surocco v. Geary</b></i>, 3 Cal. 69 (1853), a large fire threatened the unburned half of the then small town of San Francisco. A public officer ordered the destruction of houses to create a firebreak and was subsequently sued by one of the owners. On appeal, the California Supreme Court held that the action was proper because:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The right to destroy property, to prevent the spread of a conflagration, has been traced to the highest law of necessity, and the natural rights of man, independent of society and the civil government. "It is referred by moralists and jurists as the same great principle which justifies the exclusive appropriation of a plank in a shipwreck, though the life of another be sacrificed; with the throwing overboard goods in a tempest, for the safety of the vessel; with the trespassing upon the lands of another, to escape death by an enemy. It rests upon the maxim, <i>Necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura private.</i>" [Necessity leads to privileges because of private justice].</blockquote><br />
<br />
<b>Civil Disobedience Political Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing:</b><br />
<br />
According to <i><b>Civil Disobedience and the Necessity Defence</b></i> (<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520106/">PDF</a>):<br />
<br />
<blockquote>[If] the [necessity] defense is allowed, the jury is called upon to weigh controversial political issues and to function as the “conscience of the community.” “Reflected in the jury’s decision is a judgment of whether, under all the circumstances of the event and in the light of all known about the defendant, the prohibited act, if committed, deserves condemnation by the law.” In cases <b>where judges have been persuaded to allow the necessity defense, juries have, often enough, delivered not guilty verdicts</b>.<br />
<br />
[..] <b>When judges have allowed the necessity defense to go to a jury in civil disobedience cases, more often than not the defendants are acquitted</b>. There are a number of cases in which <b>charges were dropped after the judge announced that the necessity defense would be permitted.</b></blockquote><br />
In <i><b>State v. Mouer</b></i> (Columbia Co. Dist. Ct., Dec. 12-16, 1977), dozens of protestors in Oregon who were conducting a civil disobedience sit-in at a nuclear power plant were arrested and charged with criminal trespass. At trial, the judge allowed the defendants to raise the state necessity defense (called the choice of evils defense) and the defendants were acquitted by the jury.<br />
<br />
In <i><b>People v. Brown</b></i> (Lake County, Jan. 1979), protesters in Illinois blocked the entrance to a nuclear power plant and were charged with criminal trespass. Relying on the defense of necessity, they argued that they had not created the situation that they had sought to correct and had reasonably believed that their conduct was necessary to avoid the harm of a nuclear accident. A doctor testified for the defense about the damaging effects of low-level radiation. All of the defendants were subsequently acquitted.<br />
<br />
In <i><b>People v. Block</b></i> (Galt Judicial Dist., Sacramento Co. Mun. Ct., Aug. 14, 1979), eleven California protestors were charged with trespass and resisting arrest in connection with a March 31, 1979 demonstration at the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant. The defendants had climbed over a fence and staged a sit-in on the grounds of the plant. At trial, the judge allowed the necessity defense to be presented to the jury. “After seven weeks of trial, nine of the defendants received a split jury verdict and one was acquitted, apparently because he had a long history of activism and had convinced the jury that he had exhausted all legal means to stop the harm” posed by the power plant. The cases against those defendants who received a split jury verdict were eventually dropped.<br />
<br />
In <i><b>California v. Lemnitzer</b></i>, No. 27106E (Pleasanton-Livermore Mun. Ct. Feb. 1, 1982) the trial of a protestor who condemned the development of nuclear weapons at the Lawrence Livermore Lab in California ended in a hung jury after the court allowed the presentation of evidence supporting the necessity defense. On retrial, the protestor, John Lemnitzer, was acquitted.<br />
<br />
In <i><b>Vermont v. Keller</b></i>, No. 1372-4-84-CNCR (Vt. Dist. Ct. Nov. 17, 1984) protestors staged a sit-in at the Vermont office of United States Senator Robert Stafford in an effort to get a public meeting about American policy in Central America. These actions resulted in their arrest on trespass charges. At trial, the court allowed the defendants to raise the defenses of necessity, international law, including the Nuremberg principles, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court allowed a number of impressive experts to testify about human rights atrocities in El Salvador and Nicaragua, as well as the important role of protest in American foreign policy. The defendants further testified they had attempted “every reasonable manner to communicate” with the Senator. The jury acquitted all of the defendants.<br />
<br />
In <i><b>Michigan v. Jones et al.</b></i>, Nos. 83-101194-101228 (Oakland County Dist. Ct. 1984) the State of Michigan held nine separate trials prosecuting fifty-one defendants who blocked access to a plant where cruise missile engines were being manufactured. The defendants were charged with trespass, disturbing the peace, blocking access, and conspiracy. In a trial where the necessity defense was allowed, the jury acquitted the defendants of all charges except failure to obey a traffic officer. In other cases where the necessity defense was allowed, the juries acquitted the defendants on all charges. In trials where the judge did not allow necessity defenses, the defendants were convicted on several counts.<br />
<br />
In <i><b>Michigan v. Largrou</b></i>, Nos. 85-000098, 99, 100, 102 (Oakland County Dist. Ct. 1985), three protestors at a Michigan cruise missile plant were charged in 1985 with trespass and criminal damage to a fence. The court found that although the defendants willfully violated the law, they did so without malice and for the public purpose of protest. All three were acquitted.<br />
<br />
In <i><b>People v. Jarka</b></i>, Nos. 002170, 002196-002212, 00214, 00236, 00238 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Apr. 15, 1985), an Illinois jury acquitted twenty defendants who protested against the American military invasion of Central America by conducting a sit-in which blocked the road to the Great Lakes Naval Training Center. The protestors successfully invoked the doctrine of necessity and were allowed to put eight expert witnesses on the stand to offer evidence of the effect of nuclear weapons, American intervention in Central America, and international law. The trial judge gave the jury an instruction that stated that the threat and use of nuclear weapons violated international law.<br />
<br />
In <i><b>Chicago v. Streeter</b></i>, Nos. 85-108644, 48, 49, 51, 52, 120323, 26, 27 (Cir. Ct., Cook County Ill. May 1985), a jury was faced with eight protestors who were charged with trespass for refusing to leave the office of the South African consul. The jury was allowed to hear expert evidence about the defense of necessity and international crimes committed by the apartheid policies of South Africa. It took the jury two and a half hours to acquit the defendants.<br />
<br />
In <i><b>Washington v. Heller</b></i> (Seattle Mun. Ct. 1985), eight doctors were charged with trespassing for protests staged on the porch of the home of the South African consul. They were allowed to raise the defense of necessity and admit expert testimony about the medical and other effects of apartheid. The Seattle jury acquitted after little more than an hour and made a post-trial statement supporting anti-apartheid protests. <br />
<br />
In <i><b>Colorado v. Bock</b></i> (Denver County Ct. June 12, 1985), twenty-two Pledge of Resistance members were charged with trespass for occupying the office of a United States Senator from Colorado to protest American policy in Central America. The jurors, who were allowed to hear evidence of necessity, were instructed that the defendants could use civil disobedience only as an “emergency measure to avoid imminent public or private injury” but that the injury did not have to be directed against the defendants. The jury acquitted all of the defendants.<br />
<br />
In <i><b>Massachusetts v. Carter</b></i>, No. 86-45 CR 7475 (Hampshire Dist. Ct. 1987), the daughter of former President Jimmy Carter, Amy Carter, was arrested with fifty-nine others and charged with trespass and disorderly conduct at Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) recruitment activities on the campus of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. The fifteen defendants were allowed to present evidence to support the necessity defense, international law, and the Nuremberg principles. The defendants argued that the crimes they committed were of far lesser harm than those being committed by the CIA in Central America and offered testimony by a former contra leader and former CIA and government officials. The judge instructed the jury that they could acquit the defendants if they concluded that the defendants acted out of a belief that their protest would help stop the clear and immediate threat of public harm. The jury acquitted them in three hours.<br />
<br />
In <i><b>Washington v. Bass</b></i>, Nos. 4750-038, -395 to -400 (Thurston County Dist. Ct. April 8, 1987), several dozen students of Evergreen State College sat in the Washington State Capitol in support of an anti-apartheid disinvestment bill. Seven students refused orders to leave and were arrested and charged with trespass and disorderly conduct. At their trial, the defendants were allowed to admit statistical and expert evidence of necessity, international law, and the Nuremberg defense about the situation in South Africa. The jury acquitted all of the defendants.<br />
<br />
In <i><b>Illinois v. Fish</b></i> (Skokie Cir. Ct. Aug. 1987) twenty-six people were arrested for trespassing at the Arlington Heights Army Reserve Training Center. The trial court allowed the jury to hear evidence about the necessity defense. All of the defendants were acquitted.<br />
<br />
In <i><b>State v. McMillan</b></i>, No. D 00518 (San Luis Obispo Jud. Dist. Mun. Ct., Cal. Oct. 13, 1987), fourteen protestors blockaded Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant to prevent the loading of fuel rods. The trial judge allowed fourteen expert witnesses to offer testimony about related potential harm for the area and allowed the defendants to testify about their own related fears. The judge applied the necessity defense and acquitted the defendants.<br />
<br />
In 1988, a North Carolina court acquitted two Tuscarora Indians of charges in connection with their taking of twenty hostages at the office of a local newspaper to protest the alleged corruption of county officials. <br />
<br />
In <i><b>Massachusetts v. Schaeffer-Duffy</b></i> (Worcester Dist. Ct. 1989), five defendants tried to pass out leaflets to employees at a GTE nuclear weapons facility and prayed outside the building when they were denied entry. The judge denied the prosecutor’s motion in limine to prevent evidence of necessity. The jury was allowed to hear the defendants’ testimony about their personal efforts to stop nuclear weapons and their religious beliefs, and expert testimony about the threats of the MX missile, religious teachings against nuclear weapons, and the historical effectiveness of civil disobedience. The jury acquitted the defendants of trespass.<br />
<br />
In 1990, in Omaha, Nebraska, a jury acquitted seventeen anti-abortion protestors because of the necessity defense. The trial judge relied on the defense to overturn the trespassing convictions of an additional eighteen defendants. <br />
<br />
IN <i><b>West Valley City v. Hirshi</b></i>, No. 891003031-3 MC (Salt Lake County, Ut. Cir. Ct., W. Valley Dept. 1990), protestors were charged with criminal trespass after entering property on which Trident II nuclear missile engines were being manufactured in Salt Lake City. The trial judge permitted evidence and instructed the jury on defenses based on necessity, international law, the First Amendment, and the Nuremberg Principles. The jury acquitted the defendants.<br />
<br />
In <i><b>People v. Gray</b></i>, 571 N.Y.S.2d 851, 861-62 (N.Y. Crim. Ct.1991), a two-day bench trial resulted in the acquittal of six protestors for disorderly conduct because of the necessity defense. The protestors had blocked traffic in Manhattan to protest the opening of a bike and pedestrian lane to vehicular traffic. Judge Laura Safer-Espinoza issued a forty-two page decision reviewing dozens of decisions involving the necessity defense and provided the most extensive judicial overview of the necessity defense in state courts to date.<br />
<br />
In 1991, a Chicago jury acquitted a Catholic priest of criminal charges for damage to the inner-city neighborhood where he was pastor after he admitted painting over three tobacco- and alcohol-related billboards. The defendant argued he should not be convicted because of the necessity defense. The jury deliberated ninety minutes before acquitting the defendant. <br />
<br />
In 1993, a jury acquitted a Chicago AIDS activist charged with illegally supplying clean needles because of the necessity defense. <br />
<br />
In <i><b>California v. Halem</b></i>, No. 135842 (Berkeley Mun. Ct. 1991), the jury came to the same conclusion after hearing evidence that dispensing clean needles without a prescription, though illegal, was necessary to protect people from the spread of the AIDS virus.<br />
<br />
In <i><b>Washington v. Brown</b></i>, No. 85-1295N (Kitsap County Dist. Ct. N. 1985), twenty-four protestors held a vigil in Washington State in protest of a “white train” carrying nuclear weapons. The state arrested twenty of the protestors and charged them with criminal trespass and conspiracy. The defendants filed extensive briefs on the right to present particular defenses to the jury, in support of their motion to dismiss conspiracy charges, and in opposition to the government’s motion in limine. The judge dismissed the conspiracy charges and did not admit evidence on the necessity defense, but it did allow Daniel Ellsberg to testify as an expert on why first-strike nuclear warheads on a train are a potential threat to peace. One defendant pled guilty to both charges. The jury acquitted the remaining nineteen defendants.<br />
<br />
In <i><b>Washington v. Karon</b></i>, No. J85-1136-39 (Benton County Dist. Ct. 1985), four defendants blockaded a federal Plutonium-Uranium extraction facility at Hanford Nuclear Reservation. They were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct and failure to disperse. The defendants filed motions in limine to raise necessity, Nuremberg principles, and the Geneva and Hague Conventions as defenses. The trial judge allowed Nuremberg and necessity defenses, permitted expert testimony regarding radiation contamination, and refused expert testimony regarding nuclear war. The court agreed to give international law instructions to the jury. Immediately after the court ruling permitting scientists to testify on radiation contamination, the prosecution moved to dismiss the case and the court granted the motion.<br />
<br />
In <i><b>United States v. Braden</b></i> (W.D. Ky. 1985), twenty-nine demonstrators entered the office of a United States senator as part of the Pledge of Resistance. At their arraignment, the defendants announced their intent to use Nuremberg, necessity, and First Amendment defenses (freedom of speech includes freedom to be heard; today the only way to be heard is to act). The government dropped all charges prior to trial.<br />
<br />
In <i><b>California v. Jerome</b></i>, Nos. 5450895, 5451038, 5516177, 5516159 (Livermore-Pleasanton Mun. Ct., Alameda County, Traffic Div. 1987), more than thirty protestors blocked the main gate to the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab in a nonviolent sit-in. They were arrested for traffic offenses of blocking and delaying traffic. The Traffic Commissioner agreed to consider expert testimony on the necessity defense and international law (including Nuremberg Principles, Geneva Protocols, and the Hague Convention) via affidavits. The defendants filed affidavits for Daniel Ellsberg (on the effectiveness of nonviolent protests in arousing citizen action), Frank Newman (on international law) and Charles Schwartz (on the role of Livermore Lab in promoting the arms race). Before trial, the judge granted the prosecution’s request to drop all charges.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion: </b><br />
<br />
<b>Either way, only persons who are (A) totally ignorant of objectively applying the principles of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in accordance to rules of evidence and due process; and/or (B) endorse the denial of the principles of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in accordance to rules of evidence and due process to Mr. Breivik; could make the statement that: Breivik has been found guilty in a court of law.</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Code of Ethics 4.5. Presumption of Innocence:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<blockquote>In particular avoid presumption of guilt in crime and court reporting. Make it evident that the question of guilt, whether relating to somebody under suspicion, reported, accused or charged, has not been decided until the sentence has legal efficacy. It is a part of good press conduct to report the final result of court proceedings, which have been reported earlier.</blockquote><br />
In accordance to aforementioned argument is consequently clear that the prosecutor’s irregular decisions to ‘refuse to touch Breivik’s invocation of Necessity’ does not:<br />
<br />
(a) have the power to nullify Breivik’s invocation of necessity; <br />
(b) grant the court the authority to ‘refuse to touch Breivik’s invocation of necessity’;<br />
(c) grant the media the authority to find Mr. Breivik ‘guilty’ in a ‘trial by media ignorance of the law’.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Code of Ethics 4.13: Correction of Incorrect Information:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<blockquote>4.13. Incorrect information must be corrected and, when called for, an apology given, as soon as possible.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Relief Requested: </span></span></strong><br />
<br />
I accordingly request News with Views: Ms. Nina Burgland to be ordered to:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>(A) Correct the error of her statement that “Breivik’s guilt has been established (long ago)”; and/or provide the source for her statement of alleged fact. <br />
<br />
(B) Confirm that Anders Breivik’s is entitled to due process, including the right to be considered ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in accordance to the rule of law; and that no court of law has yet found Anders Breivik Guilty of any crime, and;<br />
<br />
(C) Apologize to Mr. Anders Breivik for violating his right to the presumption of innocence, and; <br />
<br />
(D) Apologize to her readers, for encouraging them to participate in the process of trial by media to violate Mr. Breivik’s right to the presumption of innocence.</blockquote><br />
Respectfully Submitted<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity<br />
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/">http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/ <br />
</a><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120731_nberglund-breivikguilt?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>]</span></strong></blockquote><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHi950hQDUGeYeN5LQ7fVC-fztycmQZGKJy4SKtNYz5iz4aTV9NGpWJvl0aqmVpb-E5TaStyRevLym_LJB7XWpRJ8TE74rwmoMcgdsaQJij4u2usfyHyau7iiKRD5rAe8st5d-rGHbkjQ/s1600/PoliticalNecessity-MilitaryNecessity_Breivik_559x611.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHi950hQDUGeYeN5LQ7fVC-fztycmQZGKJy4SKtNYz5iz4aTV9NGpWJvl0aqmVpb-E5TaStyRevLym_LJB7XWpRJ8TE74rwmoMcgdsaQJij4u2usfyHyau7iiKRD5rAe8st5d-rGHbkjQ/s1600/PoliticalNecessity-MilitaryNecessity_Breivik_559x611.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 611px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 559px;" /></a></div><br />
<blockquote>From: Lara Johnstone<br />
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 10:19 PM<br />
To: NO: Crt: Breivik: Geir Lippestad; NO: Lippestad: Tord; NO: Lippestad: Odd<br />
Cc: 'Press Complaints Commission'; 'Norway News in English: Nina Berglund'<br />
<b>Subject: Mr. Breivik c/o Lippestad Attorneys: Req. Consent for PFU Complaint Against Nina Berglund's statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'</b><br />
<br />
Mr. Anders Breivik<br />
c/o: Lippestad Attorneys<br />
<br />
CC: Press Complaints Commission (PFU)<br />
Box 46 Sentrum, 0101 Oslo<br />
<br />
CC: Editor: Nina Berglund<br />
News and Views from Norway<br />
<br />
<b>Request for Consent to file Complaint against Nina Berglund, Editor: News & Views from Norway: Violation of 3.1, 3.2, 4.5 of Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press in Article: Breivik Moved to New Prison </b><br />
<br />
Please find attached the complaint filed with the Press Complaints Commission (PFU), which requires your consent, related to the arguments made therein. <br />
<br />
It is my allegation that Ms. Berglund’s statement that Mr. Breivik’s ‘guilt was established long ago’ is not factually or legally correct. <br />
<br />
It is my argument that only persons who (A) are totally ignorant of objectively applying the principles of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in accordance to rules of evidence and due process; and/or (B) endorse the denial of the principles of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in accordance to rules of evidence and due process to Mr. Breivik; could make the statement that: Breivik has been found guilty in a court of law.<br />
<br />
The prosecutor’s irregular decisions to ‘refuse to touch Breivik’s invocation of Necessity’ does not:<br />
<br />
(a) have the power to nullify Breivik’s invocation of necessity; <br />
(b) grant the court the authority to ‘refuse to touch Breivik’s invocation of necessity’;<br />
(c) grant the media the authority to find Mr. Breivik ‘guilty’ in a ‘trial by media ignorance of the law’.<br />
<br />
<b>Relief Requested: </b><br />
<br />
I accordingly request News with Views: Ms. Nina Burgland to be ordered to:<br />
<br />
(A) Correct the error of her statement that “Breivik’s guilt has been established (long ago)”; and/or provide the source for her statement of alleged fact. <br />
(B) Confirm that Anders Breivik’s is entitled to due process, including the right to be considered ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in accordance to the rule of law; and that no court of law has yet found Anders Breivik Guilty of any crime, and;<br />
(C) Apologize to Mr. Anders Breivik for violating his right to the presumption of innocence, and; <br />
(D) Apologize to her readers, for encouraging them to participate in the process of trial by media to violate Mr. Breivik’s right to the presumption of innocence.<br />
<br />
Respectfully Submitted<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity<br />
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/">http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/</a></blockquote><br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 3px; margin: 05px auto 0px; text-align: center; width: 323px;" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>From: Lara Johnstone<br />
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 10:14 PM<br />
To: 'Press Complaints Commission'; 'Norway News in English: Nina Berglund'<br />
<b>Subject: PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'</b><br />
<br />
Press Complaints Commission (PFU)<br />
Box 46 Sentrum, 0101 Oslo<br />
<br />
CC: Editor: Nina Berglund<br />
News and Views from Norway<br />
<br />
<b>Complaint against Nina Berglund, Editor: News & Views from Norway: Violation of 3.1, 3.2, 4.5 of Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press in Article: Breivik Moved to New Prison </b><br />
<br />
Please Note: Attached is a letter submitted to Mr. Anders Breivik, via his Legal Representatives: Lippestad Attorneys, requesting his consent, related to the arguments made in this complaint. <br />
<br />
This complaint relates to the following statement made by Ms. Berglund in her article: Breivik Moved to New Prison:<br />
<br />
"Breivik’s trial ended in late June and his guilt was established long ago, but the court will rule on whether he’s sane and able to be sentenced to prison, or whether he’s insane and must be committed to psychiatric care instead."<br />
<br />
<b>Summary of Argument: </b><br />
<br />
It is my argument that only persons who (A) are totally ignorant of objectively applying the principles of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in accordance to rules of evidence and due process; and/or (B) endorse the denial of the principles of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in accordance to rules of evidence and due process to Mr. Breivik; could make the statement that: Breivik has been found guilty in a court of law.<br />
<br />
The prosecutor’s irregular decisions to ‘refuse to touch Breivik’s invocation of Necessity’ does not:<br />
<br />
(a) have the power to nullify Breivik’s invocation of necessity; <br />
(b) grant the court the authority to ‘refuse to touch Breivik’s invocation of necessity’;<br />
(c) grant the media the authority to find Mr. Breivik ‘guilty’ in a ‘trial by media ignorance of the law’.<br />
<br />
Please find complete complaint in attached PDF. <br />
<br />
<b>Relief Requested:</b><br />
<br />
I accordingly request News with Views: Ms. Nina Burgland to be ordered to:<br />
<br />
(A) Correct the error of her statement that “Breivik’s guilt has been established (long ago)”; and/or provide the source for her statement of alleged fact. <br />
(B) Confirm that Anders Breivik’s is entitled to due process, including the right to be considered ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in accordance to the rule of law; and that no court of law has yet found Anders Breivik Guilty of any crime, and;<br />
(C) Apologize to Mr. Anders Breivik for violating his right to the presumption of innocence, and; <br />
(D) Apologize to her readers, for encouraging them to participate in the process of trial by media to violate Mr. Breivik’s right to the presumption of innocence.<br />
<br />
Respectfully Submitted<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity<br />
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/">http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/</a> </blockquote></div><br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-34227645065925373502012-07-20T01:56:00.000-07:002012-08-01T03:07:54.950-07:00Parl. Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943: Slow Case Processing of Norway v Breivik Complaint to Sec. for Supv. Comm of Judges<div align="justify">
<br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<blockquote>
<strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Parl. Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943: Slow Case Processing of Norway v Breivik Complaint to Secretariat for Supv. Committee of Judges: Against Justice Tore Schei | Judge Wenche Arntzen | Judge Nina Opsahl</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">[SOM: 2012-1943]: Re: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: Klage: Justice Tore Schei | Judge Wenche Arntzen | Judge Nina Opsahl</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">20 July 2012 | Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik</span></strong></blockquote>
</div>
<br />
<a href="http://fleur-de-lis.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYcJAk7Sxf9PKq5ZtvN4ynENuGdfKXZL-YCYCTBkhfApoy2qQE8msrCfoqhyphenhyphentzzhRDPGEtyEbE_uUFacD_h1khaBqSWe6UZCaQMjA26pYR0kn-FJCmCdOQJrJbz6GIl-f_yCQLfw72_to/s1600/ParlOmbudsman_NOpsahl-WArntzen-TSchei_327x498.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 498px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 327px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: 95%;">On 04 July 2012, I filed two complaints with the Ombudsmans office, via their official complaints procedure. <br />
<br />
On 20 July I received a response from the Ombudsman offices by land mail (Ref: 2012/1943), in response to my complaint to the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges:<br />
<br />
“On 30 May 2012 complainant filed three complaints with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges respectively against respectively: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl. On 06 June 2012 complainant noted that she had not yet received any information detailing the process and procedure for her complaints, and additionally provided the completed signed “Skjema for klage på dommere til Tilsynsutvalget for dommere (TU)” forms for her complaints. On 02 July 2012-07-02 complainant noted: “I am still waiting for the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, to provide me with a Case and/or Reference Number for my complaint/s, including details about processing of my complaint/s in Norway v. Breivik matter against respectively: (1) Judge Nina Opsahl, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Chief Justice Tore Schei.””<br />
<br />
As per the Ombudsman's Instructions, I again contacted the Secretariat Supervisory Committee of Judges for a response, and noted that in the absence of such a response, I shall again contact the Ombudsman, to provide his Office with the information to proceed in the matter. </span></blockquote>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 4px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 444px;" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120711_som_2012-1943?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhd26tgeyiRl11qWoMYdJw81h4lQo_sgh0kwhyDTeW8b1ILPxE-F90HMqD6UOtKL72lTTu4GnU256BglbxTpLBl-StFEGgXhP0-8G9y1GSt2mPKolQ-z7DNiMzMxKvfDTNBEEj9GgOZMn4/s1600/12-07-11_ParlOmbudsman_2012-1943_SecrSupvCommJudges_TSchei-WArntzen-NOpsahl_564x821.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 821px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 564px;" /></a><br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 4px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 444px;" /></div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<blockquote>
<strong><span style="font-size: 115%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Notice to Secretariat for Supv. Committee of Judges & Relevant Norway v. Breivik Parties</span></span></strong> </blockquote>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
From: Lara Johnstone<br />
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 12:14 PM<br />
To: 'Supv. Comm. Judges'<br />
Cc: 'Norway Supreme Court Admin'; Ch.Justice Tore Schei (**@hoyesterett.no); NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court (**@domstol.no); NO Oslo District Court: Admin (**@domstol.no); Judge Wenche Arntzen (**@domstol.no); Judge Nina Opsahl (**@domstol.no)<br />
<b>Subject: [SOM: 2012-1943]: Re: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: Klage: Justice Tore Schei | Judge Wenche Arntzen | Judge Nina Opsahl</b><br />
<br />
Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges<br />
National Courts Administration,<br />
Tel: 73 56 70 00 | Fax: 73 56 70 01<br />
<br />
CC: Justice Schei, Judge Arntzen, Judge Opsahl [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjR3NeKbSn5Pg_vyEX84GV0EJlwKYgivXAEO4ccCcSVO8euReN-cKolkUZyCk0-Pd7Dgt7WDP89-hEL4mf5yCvvs0NLEpRZZ7E8xmSmUVxUXU-V3VBrY3evQs2GJdFE3RS028CmywKf5Yk/s1600/12-07-20_Secr-Supv-Comm-Judges_TSchei-WArntzen-NOpsahl.png">SS</a>]<br />
CC: Norway Supreme Court, Oslo District Court [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjR3NeKbSn5Pg_vyEX84GV0EJlwKYgivXAEO4ccCcSVO8euReN-cKolkUZyCk0-Pd7Dgt7WDP89-hEL4mf5yCvvs0NLEpRZZ7E8xmSmUVxUXU-V3VBrY3evQs2GJdFE3RS028CmywKf5Yk/s1600/12-07-20_Secr-Supv-Comm-Judges_TSchei-WArntzen-NOpsahl.png">SS</a>]<br />
CC: Norway v. Breivik: Prosecutor, Victims Families, Defendant [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5xpfU_UdS8ZXG9y4G3xOuOhXYVnZ5HSBb9DgwdL-IJxiBQ1NhjCPOOecfnedb939gQ9CVtzsxpD_vIVpp_9NQWZf-rCA5WbBLrzUh7o2gZDahwYpQIZ2n3LA7Qcklxj0hj86MT_bSW2s/s1600/12-07-20_Secr-Supv-Comm-Judges_Pros-Victims-Breivik.png">SS</a>]<br />
<br />
<b>RE: 30 May 2012 Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges complaints against Complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei; Judge Wenche Arntzen and Judge Nina Opsahl. </b><br />
<br />
I am still waiting for the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, to provide me with a Case and/or Reference Number for my complaint/s, including details about processing of my complaint/s in Norway v. Breivik matter against respectively: (1) Judge Nina Opsahl, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Chief Justice Tore Schei. <br />
<br />
Please Note:<br />
<br />
1. In case of Absence of Response from Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, providing a case number and details of processing of my complaint (or alternatively a final date by when such information shall be provided to me by the Committee), by 27 July 2012; the complaint shall be submitted to: <br />
<br />
Parliamentary Ombudsman<br />
Head of Division: Berit Sollie<br />
Advisor: Torbjorn Hagerup Nagelhus<br />
Case: 2012/1943<br />
Re: Lack of Response from the Supervisory Committee of Judges<br />
<br />
2. As a member of Radical Honesty culture, I practice Total Transparency; hence have no requirements for secrecy. All correspondence can be submitted by email. <br />
<br />
Respectfully Submitted<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist<br />
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity<br />
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/">http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Lara (Clann/Tribe Name: Johnstone): I (Sovereign or alleged Corporate identity) do not endorse any contract which does not fulfill the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract, namely: (1) Full Disclosure; (2) Equal Consideration; (3) Lawful Clear and Concise Terms and Conditions simply explained; and (4) Signatures of both/all Parties. All my correspondence is public and a matter of record. If you wish to conduct private correspondence with me: File a written request, including your evidence and reasons, and only if your evidence is of sufficient weight, shall I be willing to enter into an agreement with you to keep your correspondence 'private' (i.e. secret). As a member of Radical Honesty culture I always endorse the resolution of all disagreements and/or misunderstandings in accordance to Radical Honesty cultural practices (See: Practicing Radical Honesty, by Brad Blanton & Concourt CCT 23-10 order by Justices on 03 May 2010: "The Chief Justice has issued the following directions: Ms. Lara Johnstone, Member of the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion is admitted as an Amicus Curiae."), or via independent arbitration that does not involve bloodsucking parasite lawyers; and am willing to consider the practices of other cultures, who seriously and sincerely consider mine.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120711_som_2012-1943?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF: SOM: 2012-1943 </a>]</span></strong></blockquote>
<br />
<div align="center">
<a href="http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDaHlMnOTbOsI7UAg2IG9FlxM-fwg81wmfFGw7mA9Xg6UXjaI9qmbOY6Mz0gffwKG5TpKSImdwnZojFSyx0aPTM5rQljtRDFcXDoknvp9dP65vcfZpqBH6BR5pLFGfdJsdfTQLHuSpQQA/s1600/NOCorruption_NorgeKorrupsjon_Gov-Pol-AdvFor-Courts_572x125.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 125px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 572px;" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<blockquote>
<strong><span style="font-size: 115%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Notice to Parliamentary Ombudsman</span></span></strong> </blockquote>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
From: Lara Johnstone<br />
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 12:27 PM<br />
To: 'Parliamentary Ombudsman'<br />
<b>Subject: RE: Sivilombudsmannen: (1) General & (2) Ref: 2012/1943: Att: Torbjorn H Nagelhus</b><br />
<br />
(1) The Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public Administration<br />
P.O. Box 3 Sentrum NO - 0101 Oslo<br />
Telephone: +47 22 82 85 00<br />
Tel: 22 82 85 00 | Toll: 800 800 39 | Fax: 22 82 85 11<br />
E-mail: postmottak@sivilombudsmannen.no<br />
<br />
(2) Attention: Torbjorn Hagerup Nagelhus<br />
SOM Reference: 2012/1943<br />
<br />
Dear Parliamentary Ombudsman & Mr. Nagelhus,<br />
<br />
On 04 July 2012, I filed two complaints with the Ombudsmans office, via your official complaints procedure. <br />
<br />
On 19 July I contacted your office by email to inform you that I had not yet received a response to my complaints within the two week period advised. <br />
<br />
On 20 July I received a response from your offices by land mail (Ref: 2012/1943). I imagine the Ombudsman's response to my second complaint is also sent by land mail. I shall give it more time to arrive.<br />
<br />
(2) I have followed the instructions of the Ombudsman as required in Correspondence dated 11.07.2012 (Ref 2012/1943): Lack of Response from the Supervisory Committee of Judges. In the absence of any response from the Supervisory Committee of Judges by 27.07.2012, I shall again contact your office in the matter. <br />
<br />
Respectfully<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist<br />
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity<br />
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/">http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/</a><br />
<br />
********************************************************************<br />
20 July 2012: [SOM: 2012-1943]: Re: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: <br />
Klage: Justice Tore Schei | Judge Wenche Arntzen | Judge Nina Opsahl<br />
********************************************************************<br />
<br />
From: Lara Johnstone<br />
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 12:14 PM<br />
To: 'Supv. Comm. Judges'<br />
Cc: 'Norway Supreme Court Admin'; Ch.Justice Tore Schei (**@hoyesterett.no); NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court (**@domstol.no); NO Oslo District Court: Admin (**@domstol.no); Judge Wenche Arntzen (**@domstol.no); Judge Nina Opsahl (**@domstol.no)<br />
<b>Subject: [SOM: 2012-1943]: Re: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: Klage: Justice Tore Schei | Judge Wenche Arntzen | Judge Nina Opsahl</b><br />
<br />
Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges<br />
National Courts Administration,<br />
Tel: 73 56 70 00 | Fax: 73 56 70 01<br />
<br />
CC: Justice Schei, Judge Arntzen, Judge Opsahl<br />
CC: Norway Supreme Court, Oslo District Court<br />
<br />
RE: 30 May 2012 Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges complaints against Complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei; Judge Wenche Arntzen and Judge Nina Opsahl. <br />
<br />
I am still waiting for the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, to provide me with a Case and/or Reference Number for my complaint/s, including details about processing of my complaint/s in Norway v. Breivik matter against respectively: (1) Judge Nina Opsahl, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Chief Justice Tore Schei. <br />
<br />
Please Note:<br />
<br />
1. In case of Absence of Response from Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, providing a case number and details of processing of my complaint (or alternatively a final date by when such information shall be provided to me by the Committee), by 27 July 2012; the complaint shall be submitted to: <br />
<br />
Parliamentary Ombudsman<br />
Head of Division: Berit Sollie<br />
Advisor: Torbjorn Hagerup Nagelhus<br />
Case: 2012/1943<br />
Re: Lack of Response from the Supervisory Committee of Judges<br />
<br />
2. As a member of Radical Honesty culture, I practice Total Transparency; hence have no requirements for secrecy. All correspondence can be submitted by email. <br />
<br />
Respectfully Submitted<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist<br />
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity<br />
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/">http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Lara (Clann/Tribe Name: Johnstone): I (Sovereign or alleged Corporate identity) do not endorse any contract which does not fulfill the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract, namely: (1) Full Disclosure; (2) Equal Consideration; (3) Lawful Clear and Concise Terms and Conditions simply explained; and (4) Signatures of both/all Parties. All my correspondence is public and a matter of record. If you wish to conduct private correspondence with me: File a written request, including your evidence and reasons, and only if your evidence is of sufficient weight, shall I be willing to enter into an agreement with you to keep your correspondence 'private' (i.e. secret). As a member of Radical Honesty culture I always endorse the resolution of all disagreements and/or misunderstandings in accordance to Radical Honesty cultural practices (See: Practicing Radical Honesty, by Brad Blanton & Concourt CCT 23-10 order by Justices on 03 May 2010: "The Chief Justice has issued the following directions: Ms. Lara Johnstone, Member of the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion is admitted as an Amicus Curiae."), or via independent arbitration that does not involve bloodsucking parasite lawyers; and am willing to consider the practices of other cultures, who seriously and sincerely consider mine.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120711_som_2012-1943?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF: SOM: 2012-1943 </a>]</span></strong></blockquote>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-27913284482924848742012-07-13T04:12:00.000-07:002012-07-13T04:12:36.726-07:00[Update] RettsNorge/JustNorway: Herman Berge: ‘Corrupt Appointment of Judges renders Breivik Court Case Null & Void’<div align="justify"><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">[Update] RettsNorge/JustNorway: Herman Berge: ‘Corrupt Appointment of Judges renders Breivik Court Case Null & Void’</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Updated & Accurate Translation: </span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">Herman J. Berge | Retts Norge | 05 July 2012 (Updated & Translated from 02 July)</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<a href="http://www.rettsnorge.no/artikler/2012/Juli/050712%20Main%20hearing%20in%20BREIVIK%20Case%20is%20invalid.htm"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2RLLX9vCgUD7G3sxNEM69RdC_BdpAmdiSK5bQKYKoWeW7g5-SlyV12wNSpJehR22D2Bma3YXhpHcEeuqXekMzSHykbqRhephHApsX18PqQsuOdqlHduuC7hFoDY27mhSSWGj3vV4vI60/s1600/RettsNorge-HermanBerge_GEngebretsen_WArntzen-ALyng_326x517.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 517px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 326px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 95%;"><a href="http://www.rettsnorge.no/artikler/2012/Februar/290212_Herman_J_Berge_Profil.htm">Herman J Berge</a> is a Norwegian Lawyer known for winning Norway's largest single payment to a private person, for his clients Amelia and Einar Riis. He is currently the editor of RettsNorge/Just Norway. RettsNorge's <a href="http://www.rettsnorge.no/formaal.htm">purpose</a> is to provide a critical look at Norway's application of the law in its courts. RettsNorge believes that too many people experience unbalanced and unfair decisions in Norway's courts, and even worse that many of the legal representatives do not serve their clients interests. On this issue the evidence is huge; the most recent case being a suit brought against Adv. Christian Haneborg, who according to Business Today is being sued for 50 million for having deceived his previous clients. RettsNorge wishes to educate citizens about the reality behind Norway's legal propaganda image. For forty years the media have been silent, while sitting on burning data; and instead of doing their duty as the fourth estate to hold power accountable, the media have censored evidence of the corruption of Norway's courts to maintain good relationships with the power elite. RettsNorge hopes to illuminate legal reality as it truly is, not as most wish it to be, or pretend it to be. <br />
<br />
In the Updated and Accurately Translated Article: <i><b>MAIN HEARING IN BREIVIK-CASE IS INVALID</b></i>, Mr. Berge writes, among others: <br />
<br />
“The two judges in the Breivik-case were actually "picked" for the job, hence the case was not distributed to the two judges according to law. A further consequence of this unprecedented procedure is that these two judges (from an objective point of view) are considered to be disqualified and the judges should obviously have recused themselves, see the Norwegian Court Administration Act § 108 (NCAA). Consequently the court was not legally constituted, and there has to be a retrial.<br />
<br />
[..] Allow me to warn those of you who have not yet discovered it, that Mr. Engebretsen’s <i><b>special private procedure</b></i>, which seems to have been hailed by the media, is in itself a confirmation that this procedure is neither uncommon nor considered unfortunate among the leaders and deputy leaders in Norway, which is alarming. The fact that the press does not oppose or even react against this, but rather seems to admire that descendants of the country's old elite now has been specially selected to continue in their ancestors tracks, are equally alarming.<br />
<br />
As you will see from the above, we are not faced with a random assignment of <i><b>cases</b></i>, but rather with a deliberate unlawful selection of <i><b>judges</b></i>, which in itself is a confirmation of a judicial system and a court in decay.”<br />
</span></blockquote><br /><a name='more'></a>
<br />
<br />
<div align="center"><a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJZPj_1SWXWvyLlmRAgy0CECpSqhbfzctqlXhs97tHB4maoYbOMEvkQ9wg8GGeJtrggM9CDTSYcuf0w6P8PMn3xY-0nr91BulyjINw0y0Hspz-SGwc5NgHa1VtgcBwZpc3PRRkdJ8Mrs/s1600/NorwayVBreivik_FleurdeLis_MargaretHagen_556x119.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div><br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">MAIN HEARING IN BREIVIK-CASE IS INVALID</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">Herman J. Berge | Retts Norge | 05 July 2012 (Updated & Translated from 02 July)</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<blockquote>The two judges in the <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=breivik-case&rls=com.microsoft:no:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLL_enLU318">Breivik-case</a> were actually "picked" for the job, hence the case was not distributed to the two judges according to law. A further consequence of this unprecedented procedure is that these two judges (from an objective point of view) are considered to be disqualified and the judges should obviously have recused themselves, see the <a href="http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19150813-005-007.html#108">Norwegian Court Administration Act</a> § 108 (NCAA). Consequently the court was not legally constituted, and there has to be a retrial.<br />
<br />
The actual cause to this conclusion stems from the simple fact that cases filed with the court are supposed to be distributed to the judges by a system which automatically selects the next judge from an alphabetically arranged list, or by similar automatic systems, see e.g. Principle 2, paragraph e, the Council of Europe, <a href="http://www.hjpc.ba/dc/pdf/Recommendation%20no%20R%20(94)%2012.pdf">Recommendation No. R (94) 12)</a>:<br />
<br />
Principle 1, 2, e:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"<i>The distribution of cases Should not be influenced by the wishes of any party to a case or any person Concerned with the results of the case. Such distribution may, for instance, be made by drawing lots or of a system for automatic distribution According to alphabetic order or some similar system.</i>"</blockquote><br />
This means that a judge acting within a fair and legitimate legal system will never be asked to "take" a case. Such questions will simply not occur. Consequently, an independent judge who works at an independent tribunal will never face a situation where he/she must answer yes or no to participate in a case. There are basically two reasons for a judge to say no to a case (a situation which only occurs after the distribution of a case), and that is in cases of serious illness or conflict of interest. It follows from this that a judge can only process cases which have been lawfully distributed to him/her.<br />
<br />
It appears from Norwegian <a href="http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/12/23/nyheter/anders_behring_breivik/innenriks/terrorangrepet/oslo_tingrett/19537550/">press reports</a> that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geir_Engebretsen">Geir Engebretsen</a> (Magistrate of the Oslo City Court) on an early stage of the case, in secret had decided which judges he thought were best suited to handle <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_behring_breivik">Anders Behring Breivik</a>. Mr. Engebretsen has thus simply, and in accordance with his personal opinion, not the law, “picked” the judges who he thought were best suited to assess and determine the state's charges against Anders Behring Breivik.<br />
<br />
According to <a href="http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/12/23/nyheter/anders_behring_breivik/innenriks/terrorangrepet/oslo_tingrett/19537550/">Dagbladet</a> and <a href="http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7927722">NRK</a> Mr. Engebretsen – after having decided who would get the job sentencing Breivik – in secret considered the impartiality of the <i>"chosen ones"</i>, that is, to make sure that Mr. Breivik would not have any reason to dispute and recuse the judges (personal or factual). When Mr. Engebretsen finally finished this unprecedented exercise, he then approached the two judges and told them that they are impartial, that they can get the job if they want to, and that this (obviously) was completely up to them to decide (i.e. voluntary). There is no legal basis in Norwegian law that comes even close to grant Mr. Engebretsen the mandate he actually carried out in November/Desember 2011. What Mr. Engebretsen did is a crime, which more than indicates that the actual court hearing was – for some reason or other – just a play for the masses.<br />
<br />
Any question of conflict of interest (impartiality) is by law placed in the hands of the judge who has received the distributed case file. By definition a question of conflict of interest and recusal will in most cases not occur <b>before</b> the case has been distributed to the given judge, cf. NCAA § 113, first paragraph: "<i>... if a judge finds that he is in a position that gives the <b>parties</b> ...</i>"<br />
<br />
The law thus does not provide for a judge to poke his way through the court dockets before the cases are distributed, this to get a general idea of which cases will suit which judges (his chosen ones). Neither does the law provide for a judge to in absolute secrecy assess and determine the neatly picked judge's impartiality, and eventually ask the judge if he / she wants to take the case, voluntarily, while stating to the judge in question that he / she are in no conflict of interest. Despite the lack of legal basis, this is precisely what Magistrate Engebretsen has done, which in itself must be classified as <i>the</i> resignation of 2011.<br />
<br />
I am sorry for repeating myself, but this is important: The NCAA requires the opposite of how Mr. Engebretsen operates and manages the Oslo District Court, namely that the case files are first to be distributed (randomly, see above) to the given judges. A judge is subject to strict rules of impartiality, but it is only at this point during the course of the administration of the case that the judge will receive motions / petitions from parties concerning his/her impartiality, requests which initially will be considered by the judge who has been assigned to the case, cf. presumably NCAA § § 112 and 113. To put it in other and perhaps simpler words: When a case is brought before a court, the system distributing the given cases, is – and should be – constructed in such a manner that the next case on the docket is automatically distributed (unhampered) to the next judge on the list. And it is at this later point, not before, that a case has become the responsibility of a judge. Any motion contesting a judge’s impartiality has to be filed as early as possible, but obviously not before a judge has been assigned the case. Mr. Engebretsen has, with the almost obvious willing help from the Media, manipulated the Norwegian people – and the rest of the world – to believe that he can assess and determine any question of conflict of interest, <b>before</b> the case has been assigned to a judge. It’s quite remarkable. There are many nuances with regards to impartiality, but I have chosen to weed these out to make the problem – and (hopefully) the conclusion – more cleare.<br />
<br />
The Engebretsen-scheme is contrary to the very foundation of judicial independence, of which the allocation process is a part of, namely that a case is to be distributed to a judge by a system which ensures that no one can influence or corrupt the process. Neither the Magistrate nor any other judge are mandated to sit down and pick cases they like and opt out cases they don’t find interesting for their practice at the court. If we are to follow the Engebretsen-scheme, God forbid (but then again; no one knows how far this has come in Norway), we will soon end up with judges who “pick” cases solely to damage a person they do not like, or break down a social system they don’t agree to. Such a scheme may also contribute to an internal <i>“battle for cases”</i>, which of obvious reasons leads to factions within the courts; 1) those who like the boss – because he picks them for many interesting cases – which in turn lead these judges to act as they may see fit to have him/her like them even more, and 2) those who are independent and thus falls outside and remain stuck with the crappy stuff, to put it in straight words.<br />
<br />
Although it appears that Judge Arntzen have understood the principles (of which was meant to create and protect an independent judiciary) better than Engebretsen did, see her statements to the <a href="http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/12/23/nyheter/anders_behring_breivik/innenriks/terrorangrepet/oslo_tingrett/19537550/">Dagbladet 23 December 2011</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"<i>It's part of my job as a judge, that I shall carry out the jobs that are imposed on me</i>"</blockquote><br />
this has no effect on the outcome of the Breivik-hearing. The trial remains void. By the way, Mrs. Arntzen’s immediate reflex reaction, as an independent judge, should have been:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>"Sorry, Geir. I understand by this that you have "picked" me. As I am an independent judge, also in regards to you and your wishes, I have to reject your request. Consequently I consider myself to be biased and I recuse myself.</i>"</blockquote><br />
Take note, also, that in this picture, a judge who obviously is in conflict of interest and is aware of this but nevertheless fails to voluntarily recuse himself/herself, should be publicly censured for misconduct by the Judiciary Commission (<a href="http://www.domstol.no/tilsynsutvalget">Tilsynsutvalget for dommere</a>). I understand that some of you Norwegians are laughing out loud now (i.e. <i>this will never happen in Norway</i>), with good reason, which in itself demonstrates how wrong it has all gone with Norway, its judiciary and the ridiculous Judiciary Commission of which the Chairman of the Committee still hasn’t realized that the rest of the people laugh at – and suffers under.<br />
<br />
It seems obvious that Arne Lyng has not realised his position in the legal system, which he demonstrates by his statement to the press:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"<i>I was asked on Monday and agreed to the task. I was not in doubt.</i>"</blockquote><br />
That he was not in doubt, confirms that Mr. Lyng on other occasions may <i>have been</i> in doubt; that he has faced such issues before; and that Mr. Lyng believes that he can opt out cases he does not want to be involved in. This indicates that Mr. Lyng has not grasped the big picture of judicial independence, and what this concept rests upon, namely – in part – the principle of random distribution of court cases. Now, certainly the Oslo District Court judges think I'm very unfair as the small single judge courts never face these problems, so why should I thus pick on Oslo? If so, these judges reaffirm that they have not understood the problem.<br />
<br />
I believe that Mr. Engebretsen actually doesn’t know what he's playing with, which became even more apparent when he made it clear to the press, just before last Christmas, that the two judges in question were <u>his</u> <i>“first choice”</i>. By this (from a judicial point of view) horrific statement, it becomes evident that Magistrate Engebretsen had picked a number of other judges as <u>his</u> <i>"second and third choice"</i>, should the first choice refuse, please see <a href="http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/22-juli/artikkel.php?artid=10024934">VG 23 December 2011</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>"Those two were the court's first choice, and both agreed to take the job without a doubt."</i></blockquote><br />
As stated in the press headlines, the “distribution” of the Breivik-case is clearly influenced by Magistrate Geir Engebretsen (and those who control him) and by his motives. Furthermore the VG's reports from the press conference confirms that Mr. Engebretsen in secret reviews cases (at least the more "interesting" cases), picks the judges or the team of judges, evaluates and determines the judges' impartiality (conflict of interest), develops a plan B if <i>"the chosen ones"</i> say no, offer the cases to <i>“the chosen ones”</i> and leave it up to their own discretion whether to accept the job or not. To put it in simple terms: Mr. Engebretsen has taken control over Oslo District Court and introduced anarchy (or corruptarchy) in its jurisdiction, this without the slightest protest from any journalists, jurists or lawmakers. Amazing.<br />
<br />
The main hearing against Breivik should thus be nullified and there should be ordered a retrial. The administration of case against Breivik must consequently be reversed and repeated by a new team of judges, that is, from the time Mr. Engebretsen first put his hands on the case. That this will cost Norwegian taxpayers another billion (or whatever the actual amount is), is Engebretsen's problem, not ours.<br />
<br />
Magistrate Engebretsen is evidently familiar with the role of a judge, and what constitutes an independent judiciary. In this light and in the light of what Mr. Engebretsen has done, a criminal charge should be filed against him, as well as a compensation lawsuit based upon the financial loss he has caused the nation, and all those involved.<br />
<br />
Allow me to warn those of you who have not yet discovered it, that Mr. Engebretsen’s <i>special private procedure</i>, which seems to have been hailed by the media, is in itself a confirmation that this procedure is neither uncommon nor considered unfortunate among the leaders and deputy leaders in Norway, which is alarming. The fact that the press does not oppose or even react against this, but rather seems to admire that descendants of the country's old elite now has been specially selected to continue in their ancestors tracks, are equally alarming.<br />
<br />
As you will see from the above, we are not faced with a random assignment of <i>cases</i>, but rather with a deliberate unlawful selection of <i>judges</i>, which in itself is a confirmation of a judicial system and a court in decay.<br />
<br />
And let me finally provide those of you who balance your justice with national security, with a few (perhaps) cryptic words; the independence of the courts supersedes the <a href="http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19980320-010.html">Security Act</a> and its <a href="http://www.lovdata.no/for/sf/fo/xo-20010629-0722.html">regulations</a>. Put in another way: The Security Act (and its regulations) is – in so far as these may affect the independence of the courts – clearly in violation with the Constitution, this as the concept of judicial independence is incorporated in the Constitution.<br />
<br />
The Norwegian Court Administration <a href="http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19150813-005-001.html#12">Act § 12, third section</a>, <a href="http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19150813-005-001.html#21">§ 21, third section</a>, <a href="http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19150813-005-006.html#91">§ 91, first section, letter e</a>, and the Security Regulation, <a href="http://www.lovdata.no/for/sf/fo/xo-20010629-0722.html#map007">Chapter 7</a> is thus in conflict with the Constitution and its principles that judges and courts should be independent, this as these aforementioned provisions actually allow a few specially selected judges, to pick individual judges and team of judges to process cases concerning national security and its alike, a procedure which is obviously contrary to the Constitution.<br />
<br />
What these provisions do not explicitly say, but which nevertheless can be interpreted from the text of Chapter 7 of the said regulation and therefore should be a key theme / issue in the discussion about the courts and judicial independence in general, is that many of the nation's judges do not have security clearance, and hence do not have the government’s trust!!! These judges will therefore never be asked by Engebretsen & Co if they fancy to take on a juicy case. Do you think that Norway still has an independent judiciary?<br />
<br />
Herman J Berge<br />
<br />
Nuku’alofa, Tonga<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://www.rettsnorge.no/artikler/2012/Juli/050712%20Main%20hearing%20in%20BREIVIK%20Case%20is%20invalid.htm">RettsNorge</a>]</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-40785535042225927172012-07-04T15:32:00.000-07:002012-07-11T07:26:57.408-07:00Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow case processing & discrimination by Environmental Appeals Board<div align="justify"><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow case processing & discrimination by Environmental Appeals Board of complaints against Aftenposten, Dagbladet, TV2, VG, Addresseavisen, Bergens Tidende & NRK</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;"></span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">04 July 2012 | Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<a href="http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5BraTwKYf_0FpHZNNm4Nk7AVbUlNmmrmp8HO3FbTVl5MPsp83Ed9kL5WrxoRzhp_VM1EQXcp_yO6wLgJyXErevprHQzmLyx3beZvm4ti05ZtqwRk-JTHEdQu3VcpW1jUwkkoVEdmM-xU/s1600/ParlOmbudsman_Miljoninformasjon_VG-TV2-NRK_327x546.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 546px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 327px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 95%;"><b>Slow Case Processing</b>: Environment Appeals Board first deleted my appeal without reading it, then I was refused a case number and only provided a 'reference number'; and then told my 'enquiry' would only be addressed in August at the end of summer holidays.<br />
<br />
<b>Failure to Provide Case Processing</b>: Environment Appeals Board appear to be attempting to refuse to provide me with a Case Number, in their attempts to obstruct my appeal from the public record.<br />
<br />
<b>Discrimination</b>: Environment Appeals Board state my appeal is only an 'enquiry' and my 'enquiry' will only be addressed in August and refuse to confirm whether their 'summer holiday policy' is applicable to all complainants, or only my complaint; also refuse to put a public notice on their website stating their 'summer holiday policy' and whom it does and does not apply to.<br />
<br />
Full Chronology of Facts details provided in attached PDF:<br />
<br />
On 25 May 2012, Requests for Access to Environment and Health Information were submitted to the editors of Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2, VG and Addresseavisen requesting information related to their decision-making to censor information related to the (I) Media's Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway's Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny. Each respondent was additionally provided a copy of the 22 April 2012 Earth Day: 'If It Bleads, It Leads' Media's Population-Terrorism Connection Report (42pgs). The Media Publications were requested to provide the requested information by 17:00 hrs on 11 June 2012. As of 17:00 hrs on 18 June 2012, they had declined to do so.<br />
<br />
On 18 June 2012 a complaint was filed with the Environmental Appeals Board: Appeals of environmental information.<br />
<br />
Since 18 June 2012 I have been trying to get Environmental Appeals Board to issue me with a Case number; they refuse stating they are on summer vacation until August, but refuse to say if this is standard policy for everyone, or only my complaint. </span></blockquote><a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJZPj_1SWXWvyLlmRAgy0CECpSqhbfzctqlXhs97tHB4maoYbOMEvkQ9wg8GGeJtrggM9CDTSYcuf0w6P8PMn3xY-0nr91BulyjINw0y0Hspz-SGwc5NgHa1VtgcBwZpc3PRRkdJ8Mrs/s1600/NorwayVBreivik_FleurdeLis_MargaretHagen_556x119.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Parliamentary Ombudsman: Arne Fliflet<br />
The Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public Administration<br />
P.O. Box 3 Sentrum NO - 0101 Oslo<br />
Telephone: +47 22 82 85 00<br />
Tel: 22 82 85 00 | Toll: 800 800 39 | Fax: 22 82 85 11<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Slow Case Processing or Failure to Provide Case Processing and Possible Discrimination by Ministry of Environment Appeals Board: </span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Overview:</b> <br />
<br />
<b>Slow Case Processing:</b> Environment Appeals Board first deleted my appeal without reading it, then I was refused a case number and only provided a ‘reference number’; and then told my ‘enquiry’ would only be addressed in August at the end of summer holidays.<br />
<br />
<b>Failure to Provide Case Processing:</b> Environment Appeals Board appear to be attempting to refuse to provide me with a Case Number, in their attempts to obstruct my appeal from the public record. <br />
<br />
<b>Discrimination:</b> Environment Appeals Board state my appeal is only an ‘enquiry’ and my ‘enquiry’ will only be addressed in August and refuse to confirm whether their ‘summer holiday policy’ is applicable to all complainants, or only my complaint; also refuse to put a public notice on their website stating their ‘summer holiday policy’ and whom it does and does not apply to. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Chronology of Facts:</b><br />
<br />
On <b>25 May 2012</b>, Requests for Access to Environment and Health Information were submitted to the editors of <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/complaint-to-aftenposten-ed-hilde.html">Aftenposten</a>, <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/complaint-to-bergens-tidende-ed-trine.html">Bergens Tidende</a>, <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/complaint-to-dagbladet-ed-john-arne.html">Dagbladet</a>, <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/complaint-to-nrk-ed-hans-tore-bjerkaas.html">NRK</a>, <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/complaint-to-tv2no-ed-alf-hildrum.html">TV2</a>, <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/complaint-vg-ed-torry-pedersen.html">VG</a> and <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/complaint-to-adresseavisen-ed-arne-blix.html">Addresseavisen</a> requesting information related to their decision-making to censor information related to the (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny. Each respondent was additionally provided a copy of the 22 April 2012 Earth Day: “If It Bleads, It Leads” Media’s Population-Terrorism Connection Report (42pgs). The Media Publications were requested to provide the requested information by 17:00 hrs on 11 June 2012. As of 17:00 hrs on 18 June 2012, they had declined to do so. <br />
<br />
On <b>18 June 2012</b> a complaint was <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/06/environment-appeals-brd-appeal.html">filed with the Environmental Appeals Board: Appeals of environmental information</a>. <br />
<br />
On <b>22 June 2012</b>, the Environmental Appeals Board <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/06/update-environment-appeals-brd-appeal.html">responded</a> that they had deleted the complaint without reading it. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>From: Post miljoklagenemnda [mailto:Post@miljoklagenemnda.no] <br />
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 3:03 PM<br />
To: Habeus Mentem<br />
Subject: Ikke lest: Env. Appeals Brd: Appeal: RE: Addresseavisen | Aftenposten | BTidende | Dagbladet | NRK | TV2 | VG<br />
<br />
Meldingen<br />
Til: Post miljoklagenemnda<br />
Emne: Env. Appeals Brd: Appeal: RE: Addresseavisen | Aftenposten | BTidende | Dagbladet | NRK | TV2 | VG<br />
Sendt: 18. juni 2012 23:41:11 (UTC+01.00) Amsterdam, Berlin, Bern, Roma, Stockholm, Wien<br />
<br />
ble slettet uten å ha vært lest 22. juni 2012 15:02:32 (UTC+01.00) Amsterdam, Berlin, Bern, Roma, Stockholm, Wien.</blockquote><br />
No reasons have been provided by the Environment Appeals Board for their decision to delete my complaint, allegedly without reading it. Nor is it registered on their Inkomne Sake pages: “Saker til behandling nå” and neither on their Vedtak/Decisions page. <br />
<br />
On <b>25 June 2012</b> a <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/06/update-environment-appeals-brd-appeal.html">complaint was filed to the Minister of Environment: Bård Vegar Solhjell</a> requesting the Ministry to please inform me whether “the deletion was an error; or if not: written reasons for the deletion of my complaint.”<br />
<br />
On <b>25 June 2012</b> the Environmental Appeals Board (no name provided) responded. They did not apologize at all for the deletion of my complaint, nor did they provide written reasons for their decision. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>We hereby confirm the receipt of your inquiry.<br />
Reference no: 2012/708 - 1</blockquote><br />
On <b>26 June 2012</b> I responded requesting clarification regarding the so-called Reference Number and why I had not been issued with a Case Number.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is rather unusual, in my experience. <br />
<br />
In South Africa if you submit a complaint to a court; you are given a Case Number for the case. If there is an error in the application, the court clerks inform you of the specific error that allegedly requires your correction. <br />
<br />
Yet you have provided a 'reference number for an inquiry', with no additional information or any reasons for not providing a court case number. <br />
<br />
Is "2012/708 - 1" the case number for my complaint? <br />
<br />
It does not appear so to me, since the case numbers of cases on your website are numbered differently; such as:<br />
<br />
Sak: 2012/1 Sak: 2011/5 Sak: 2011/4<br />
Sak: 2011/3 Sak: 2011/1<br />
<br />
There is already a case: Sak: 2012/1; so logically this would be Sak: 2012/2.<br />
<br />
Could you please clarify what "2012/708 - 1" means, what the case number is to be; and your Norwegian court process for proceeding.</blockquote><br />
On <b>28 June 2012</b> the Environmental Appeals Board responded that they were on summer vacation and would only answer my questions after the summer vacation.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Thank you for your inquiry. Unfortunately, we will not be able to answer your inquiry until after the summer vacation. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.</blockquote><br />
On <b>28 June 2012</b> I responded to enquire when exactly the summer vacation was ending?<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Dear Ms. Nameless (Is that so you can avoid being held accountable?)<br />
Secretary for the Environmental Information Appeals Board<br />
<br />
When exactly is the end of your summer vacation? </blockquote><br />
On <b>29 June 2012</b> I filed a <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/06/minjustice-gfaremo-complaint-re.html">complaint with Minister of Justice: Ms. Grete Faremo</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Request Clarification & Response: <br />
<br />
1. Is there any Norwegian law that provides for discrimination of due process court or administrative procedures against Non-Norwegian citizens? <br />
<br />
2. Do courts and administrative bodies in Norway totally shut down for Summer vacations? <br />
<br />
3. Complaint: The Environmental Appeals Board appears to be refusing me access to its administrative due process complaint resolution procedures, and the Minister of Environment appears to approve such discrimination; <br />
<br />
4. If your Administration is not their Supervisory Body, please provide contact details of whom exactly are their Supervisory Body/ies?</blockquote><br />
On <b>29 June 2012</b> the Environmental Appeals Board provided a new reference number, with different reference number parameters than before, appearing to refer to 2008, for some unknown reason: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>We hereby confirm the receipt of your inquiry.<br />
<br />
Reference no: 2008/363</blockquote><br />
On <b>03 July 2012</b> Environmental Appeals Board responded: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Due to vacation leave for the secretary`s employees, we will consider your request in August and get back to you as soon as possible. Again, we apologize for any inconvenience that may cause.</blockquote><br />
On <b>03 July 2012</b> I responded that it was not an inconvenience to wait until August IF this was standard public policy to everyone filing a complaint to the Environmental Appeals Board; however this does not appear to be the case. I again complained to Minister of Justice: Ms. Faremo:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><b>Request Clarification & Response: </b><br />
<br />
Sounds like Norwegian Min of Justice and Environment don’t appreciate honest simple clear radical honesty language correspondence. So, for the fucking hard of hearing; we need to raise the tone a little.: <br />
<br />
The only fucked up pathetic answer I have so far received from a Norwegian who has so much respect for accountability and honesty; s/he is too much of a gutless fucking coward to take responsibility for her decision by providing her name is: <br />
<br />
"Due to vacation leave for the secretary`s employees, we will consider your request in August and get back to you as soon as possible. Again, we apologize for any inconvenience that may cause."<br />
<br />
It is sweet fuck all inconvenience to me: IF I was convinced this was STANDARD POLICY; which if so: SHOULD BE BROADCAST ON THE WEBSITE FOR EVERYONE'S KNOWLEDGE. But it isn't! Why Not? <br />
<br />
Why is there no sign on the front of Ministry of Environmental Appeals Board website saying: 'CLOSED FOR SUMMER VACATIONS; BACK ON SUCH & SUCH DAY IN AUGUST'?<br />
<br />
Is it cause the Environmental Appeals Board is only providing service to some elite people, and not to other more inferior people? <br />
<br />
Why is the Env. Appeals Board policy not standard and publicly broadcast? <br />
<br />
I am still waiting for a Case Number; and the answer to the following questions: <br />
<br />
1. Is there any Norwegian law that provides for discrimination of due process court or administrative procedures against Non-Norwegian citizens? Has the Environmental Appeals Board shut down FOR EVERYONE, or only for me; until August? If for everyone; why is there no PUBLIC NOTICE: "CLOSED UNTIL AUGUST"???? <br />
<br />
2. Do courts and administrative bodies in Norway totally shut down for TWO MONTHS of summer vacations? <br />
<br />
3. Complaint: The Environmental Appeals Board appears to be refusing me access to its administrative due process complaint resolution procedures, and the Minister of Environment appears to approve such discrimination: Why is my complaint an 'enquiry' and why am I not provided a case number? <br />
<br />
4. If your Administration is not their Supervisory Body, please provide contact details of whom exactly are their Supervisory Body/ies? Is it too much to ask the Norwegian Department of Justice to answer a few simple honest goddamn fucking questions? </blockquote><br />
I have not received any response.<br />
<br />
Respectfully Submitted<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity<br />
Norway Corruption | Norge Korrupsjon<br />
<a href="http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/">http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/</a><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120704_ombud_eab?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a> :: <a href="http://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/?lang=en_GB">Parliamentary Ombudsman</a>]</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-83429193587259500222012-07-04T15:28:00.000-07:002012-07-11T02:33:43.644-07:00Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow case processing by Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges<div align="justify"><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow case processing by Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges of Complaints against Judges Nina Opsahl, Wenche Arntzen & Justice Tore Schei</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;"></span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 04 July 2012</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<a href="http://fleur-de-lis.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOCnhdhNQzBZQ6XVYgGOVT2f7ughmrrlHWqwSEcKTLcdcx1au-Vq4xYAEsKw8pquInA0KbF2Yz3Bp4DjB6DGfbfXkqN6IzTIHcfmwhRhImOc2tApKNLaWbqkrwx4Yd8l3Z5McgB4RYJkk/s1600/ParlOmbudsman_NOpsahl-WArntzen-TSchei_327x498.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 498px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 327px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 95%;">Complaint to Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges:<br />
<br />
On 30 May 2012 complainant filed three complaints with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges respectively against respectively: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl. <br />
<br />
On 06 June 2012 complainant noted that she had not yet received any information detailing the process and procedure for her complaints, and additionally provided the completed signed “Skjema for klage på dommere til Tilsynsutvalget for dommere (TU)” forms for her complaints.<br />
<br />
On 02 July 2012-07-02 complainant noted: “I am still waiting for the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, to provide me with a Case and/or Reference Number for my complaint/s, including details about processing of my complaint/s in Norway v. Breivik matter against respectively: (1) Judge Nina Opsahl, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Chief Justice Tore Schei.” </span></blockquote><br /><a name='more'></a>
<br />
<div align="center"><br />
<br />
<a href="http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg76jwteGsl6zgK3DMhPO4cu3H9F7eRupO_jeHXMVwZBbgtdfF5zVsIvJoNYmO7WtyN34d05v8qZZKdoK2tCWg6jWvlr-zVX0rIeQ2NKuKe-SuG0rSgYvxSB23ani0DnEDGkfEKYe33r4Q/s1600/NOCorruption_NorgeKorrupsjon_Gov-Police-PolParties_572x125.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div><br />
<blockquote><br />
Parliamentary Ombudsman: Arne Fliflet<br />
The Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public Administration<br />
P.O. Box 3 Sentrum NO - 0101 Oslo<br />
Telephone: +47 22 82 85 00<br />
Tel: 22 82 85 00 | Toll: 800 800 39 | Fax: 22 82 85 11<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Slow Case Processing or Failure to Provide Case Processing by Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges: RE: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges Complaints in Norway v. Breivik matter against (i) Chief Justice Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Judge Nina Opsahl.</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Chronology of Facts: </b><br />
<br />
<b>Complaint to Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges:</b><br />
<br />
On <b>30 May 2012</b> complainant filed three complaints with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges respectively against respectively: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl. <br />
<br />
On <b>06 June 2012</b> complainant noted that she had not yet received any information detailing the process and procedure for her complaints, and additionally provided the completed signed “Skjema for klage på dommere til Tilsynsutvalget for dommere (TU)” forms for her complaints.<br />
<br />
On <b>02 July 2012</b> complainant noted: “I am still waiting for the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, to provide me with a Case and/or Reference Number for my complaint/s, including details about processing of my complaint/s in Norway v. Breivik matter against respectively: (1) Judge Nina Opsahl, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Chief Justice Tore Schei.”<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Legal Application Filed in Norway v. Breivik Matter: Judge Nina Opsahl:</b><br />
<br />
[1] 30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court: Habeus Mentem:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>1. On 30 November 2011, complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2011/12/oslo-district-court-norway-v-breivik.html">filed an Application</a> to the Oslo District Court: Application for a [I] writ of Habeus Mentem on behalf of Anders Breivik psycho-cultural integrity right to a free and fair trial; and [II] writ of Certiorari/Review of the Psychiatric Evaluation Report of Psychiatrists: Synne Serheim and Torgeir Husby as to the Mens Rea political necessity criminal liability of Anders Breivik terrorist acts, on 22 July 2011.<br />
<br />
2. On 15 December 2012 complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2011/12/notice-to-oslo-court-request-date-judge.html">informed the court</a> that: “Please could you confirm: (1) The date my application is to be submitted to Judge Opsahl, or the relevant Judge, for their consideration. (2) The date the said Judge intends to provide me with their ruling on the matter.” <br />
<br />
3. On 30 May 2012 a complaint was <a href="http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/search/label/DA%3A%20Sec.%20Supv.%20Comm.%20for%20Judges">filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges</a> as a result of Respondents failure to provide the complainant with a transparent due process response; which was a violation of their CCBE Ethical Duties to the court and all applicants to courts in all court disputes. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<b>Legal Application Filed in Norway v. Breivik Matter: Judge Wenche Arntzen:</b><br />
<br />
[2] 15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court: Amicus Curiae:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>1. On 15 April 2012, Complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/no-v-breivik-ecofeminist-application-to.html">filed an Application</a> to the Oslo District Court: Application to proceed as In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amicus Curiae for an Order (1) to approve the Applicant as an In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amici Curiae, and (2) Amending the Charges Against the Defendant and Applicant to include Treason in terms of Article 85 of Norwegian Constitution, and if found guilty, in a free and fair trial; to be executed by firing squad. The application requested the Prosecution and Defence to respond by 23 April 2012 either consenting to, or objecting to, the application.<br />
<br />
2. On 26 April 2012, Complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/update-ecofeminist-applic-to-oslo-court.html">informed the court</a> that: “There has been no response from the Prosecution and Defence either consenting to, or objecting to, my application to proceed as an Amicus. Please could you confirm: (1) The date my application is to be submitted to Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, or the relevant Judge, for her/their consideration. (2) The date the said Judge intends to provide me with their ruling approving or denying my application.” <br />
<br />
3. On 30 May 2012 a complaint was <a href="http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/search/label/DA%3A%20Sec.%20Supv.%20Comm.%20for%20Judges">filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges</a> as a result of Respondents failure to provide the complainant with a transparent due process response ; which was a violation of their CCBE Ethical Duties to the court and all applicants to courts in all court disputes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<b>Legal Application Filed in Norway v. Breivik Matter: Chief Justice Tore Schei:</b><br />
<br />
[3] 10 May 2012 Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review & Declaratory Orders:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>1. On 10 May 2012, Complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/ecofeminists-deep-green-ecology.html">filed an Application</a> to the Norway Supreme Court: Application (1) to be admitted as a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee; (2) for An Order demanding the Norwegian Ministry of Culture to act in accordance to European Court of Human Rights ruling in Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom, and clarify in adequately accessible and sufficiently precise statement; whether Norway is (A) a ‘Children of the Rainbow’ State legally committed to Multiculturalism, providing all cultures their right to invoke cultural law and hence granting the Applicant her rights to invoke Radical Honoursty cultural law; or (B) a Monocultural Indigenous European Supremacy Legal Hegemonic State, and that the Labour Party Immigration policy is a tactic to maintain their grip on power, by importing Non-Western immigrants as Labour Party vote-fodder; (3) to Review the Oslo District Court failure to act in accordance of due process to a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee Applicant member of the Radical Honesty culture.<br />
<br />
2. On 11 May 2012 complainant requested from Norway Supreme Court Officials: Mr. Svein Andersen / Mr. Kjersti Ruud: “Could you kindly clarify when the Registrar shall issue a Case Number; or whether you require additional documentation or information?” <br />
<br />
3. On 15 May 2012, Kjersti Buun Nygaard <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/no-supreme-crt-dep-sec-gen-kjersti-buun.html">responded</a> with: “Reference is made to your e-mails regarding the above issue. Please be advised that the Supreme Court of Norway only handles appeals against judgments given by the lower courts and can consequently not deal with the issue mentioned in your e-mails. Further inquiries from you regarding the above issue can not be expected to be answered.”<br />
<br />
4. On 15 May 2012, <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/no-supreme-crt-dep-sec-gen-kjersti-buun.html">complainant responded</a> with: (I) Error in Supreme Court: Deputy Secretary General: Kjersti Buun Nygaard Response to SHARP Application to Supreme Court for Declaratory Orders and Review of Oslo District Court’s Decisions.<br />
<br />
5. On 17 May 2012, complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/16-may-ecofeminist-death-battalion.html">filed an Environmental Crime Complaint to Interpol</a>, via Norway Police; Charges: Obstruction of Environmental & Indigenous Rights Justice Committed by Chief Justice Tore Schei & Dep. Sec. Gen: Kjersti Nygaard.<br />
<br />
6. On 30 May 2012 a complaint was <a href="http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/search/label/DA%3A%20Sec.%20Supv.%20Comm.%20for%20Judges">filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges</a> as a result of Respondents failure to provide the complainant with a transparent due process response ; which was a violation of their CCBE Ethical Duties to the court and all applicants to courts in all court disputes. </blockquote><br />
Respectfully Submitted<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist<br />
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity<br />
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/">http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/ </a><br />
<br />
Annexures: (Not Included: Links provided for download):<br />
[A] SA Constitutional Court Order by the Chief Justice in CCT 23-10 on 03 May 2010 (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100718_rhwr-concourt-amicus">PDF</a>)<br />
[B] 30 Nov 2011 Application to Oslo District Court for a Writ of Habeus Mentem (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/111130_breivik-habeus">PDF</a>)<br />
[C] 15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court to proceed as an Amicus Curiae (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120414_amicus">PDF</a>)<br />
[D] 10 May 2012 Appl. to Norway Supreme Court for Review & Declaratory Orders (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120510_nsc-rev">PDF</a>)<br />
[E] 15 May 2012 Error in Supreme Crt Dep Sec. Gen Response to Applic for Review (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120515_nsc-nygaard">PDF</a>)<br />
[F] 17 May 2012 Interpol Complaint: Obstruction of Env. & Ind. Rights Justice (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120517_interpol">PDF</a>)<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120704_ombud_sscj?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a> :: <a href="http://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/?lang=en_GB">Parliamentary Ombudsman</a>]</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-86883739959165678012012-07-03T03:35:00.000-07:002012-07-13T03:37:47.137-07:00RettsNorge/JustNorway: Herman Berge: ‘Corrupt Appointment of Judges renders Breivik Court Case Null & Void’<div align="justify"><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">RettsNorge/JustNorway: Herman Berge: ‘Corrupt Appointment of Judges renders Breivik Court Case Null & Void’</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">When we see what Oslo Court Officials have been able to do in this case, where all the people's eyes and ears have been directed at them, and where they still plowed the law and Constitution like dirt into the ground; one can only imagine what they are doing in less interesting cases which "only" affect individuals</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">03 July 2012 | Herman Berge | RettNorge</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<a href="http://fleur-de-lis.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFEjbSEx-Hs2iYTwxSIfu-EYXSufUFSTmQJucQDl60sMZT-UFr9soEm9Y6bco0-KBuotwImzcksuYJehufH9xTeowaqpc-dpNOl_FsJ_OyzhVZItZoOIbK0QPyEtVPOhdygNV1LOHyqSE/s1600/RettsNorge-HermanBerge_GEngebretsen_WArntzen-ALyng_326x517.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 517px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 326px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 95%;"><a href="http://www.rettsnorge.no/artikler/2012/Februar/290212_Herman_J_Berge_Profil.htm">Herman J Berge</a> is a Norwegian Lawyer known for winning Norway's largest single payment to a private person, for his clients Amelia and Einar Riis. He is currently the editor of RettsNorge/Just Norway. RettsNorge's <a href="http://www.rettsnorge.no/formaal.htm">purpose</a> is to provide a critical look at Norway's application of the law in its courts. RettsNorge believes that too many people experience unbalanced and unfair decisions in Norway's courts, and even worse that many of the legal representatives do not serve their clients interests. On this issue the evidence is huge; the most recent case being a suit brought against Adv. Christian Haneborg, who according to Business Today is being sued for 50 million for having deceived his previous clients. RettsNorge wishes to educate citizens about the reality behind Norway's legal propaganda image. For forty years the media have been silent, while sitting on burning data; and instead of doing their duty as the fourth estate to hold power accountable, the media have censored evidence of the corruption of Norway's courts to maintain good relationships with the power elite. RettsNorge hopes to illuminate legal reality as it truly is, not as most wish it to be, or pretend it to be. <br />
<br />
In the article: <i><b>The Deliberations in the Breivik Case are Null and Void</b></i>, published on 02 July 2012, Editor: Herman Berge argues that the Breivik court case was invalid, due to illegal and irregular appointment of the Judges in the case; who were specifically 'picked out'; instead of the required coincidence principle. <br />
<br />
Simply put he writes that Judge Geir Engebretsen committed a coup d'etat of the Oslo District Court, without a single lawyer or journalist objecting in protest at the irregularities. Amazing. Furthermore Breivik's case must be retried, with new judges appointed in the proper legally required procedure. <br />
<br />
Finally Judge Engrebertsen's procedure of deliberately choosing Breivik's Judges without any objections from political leaders, lawyers or the media confirms a Judicial court system in moral decay.</span></blockquote><br />
<a name='more'></a>
<br />
<div align="center"><br />
<br />
<a href="http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoNNNA3iT3PLmeLSmuaqoGtoXvcNpdpZSC6rHJwcFAP5BKuyV1g1mWzMLDequJq4T4l66eBtH_tIVjt5gtX-5u-BQOrS8wuktHt0RKm9bb_b-s6MK2VBmiEcEZYoAan5bokHW_DO8mzO8/s1600/NOCorruption_NorgeKorrupsjon_Gov-Pol-AdvFor-Courts_562x121.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 121px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 562px;" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">THE NEGOTIATION OF BREIVIK CASE IS INVALID</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">02 July 2012 | Herman Berge | Google Translate of Retts Norge </span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The negotiation of Breivik case is invalid, this when the two judges in the matter has not been assigned to the matter legally. As the judges were actually "picked out", they are objectively considered to be disqualified, see <a href="http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19150813-005-007.html#108">Court Act § 108</a>, with the result that the court was not legally constituted.<br />
<br />
The deeper cause (very deep need but not to go) is the simple fact that cases will be extracted and assigned to the court's judges after an accident policy (preferably through a system that automatically selects the next judge from an alphabet ethical drawn list, or similar automatic system, see eg Principle 2, paragraph e, the <a href="http://www.hjpc.ba/dc/pdf/Recommendation%20no%20R%20(94)%2012.pdf">Council of Europe, Recommendation No. R (94) 12</a>). I put the principle in the original text:<br />
<br />
Principle 1, 2, e:<br />
<blockquote><i>"The distribution of cases Should not be influenced by the wishes of any party to a case or any person Concerned with the results of the case. Such distribution may, for instance, be made ​​by drawing lots or of a system for automatic distribution According to alphabetic order or some similar system."</i></blockquote><br />
This means that a judge in a fair and legitimate legal system will never be <i>asked</i> to "take" a case. Such questions will simply not occur. Consequently, an independent judge who works at an independent tribunal never be faced with a situation where they must answer yes or no to a question to participate in (take on) a case, unless he / she is overworked, ill or obviously biased at first glance. It follows that a judge can only work on matters they lawfully have been assigned.<br />
<br />
It appears from press reports that Magistrate Geir Engebretsen had previously decided which judges he thought were best suited to take care of Breivik. Engebretsen has thus simply picked the judges for his personal opinion was best suited to evaluate and determine the state's charges against Anders Breivik Behring.<br />
<br />
According to <a href="http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/12/23/nyheter/anders_behring_breivik/innenriks/terrorangrepet/oslo_tingrett/19537550/">Dagbladet and NRK</a> will Engebretsen in secret - after having decided who would get the job to judge Breivik - have considered the "chosen" the judges' impartiality, that is, whether there were any of these judges (personal or factual) that could cause Breivik would argue that the judges could not judge the case. Subsequently, Engebretsen gone to these two judges and told them that they are impartial, that they can get the job, and that this (obviously) is completely voluntary. There is no basis in Norwegian law that are close to Engebretsen opportunity to do what he did in Breivik case. This is mutiny.<br />
<br />
Impartiality Questions in each case is by law placed in the hands of the judge is to administer the case. A competency questions arise (almost) by definition, not until a judge has been assigned a case, cf presumably Court Act § 113, first paragraph: " <i>... the Finder, a judge, that he is in a position that gives <b>the Parthians </b>... </i>"<br />
<br />
The Act thus not up for that a judge should be able to poke it through the court cases before the cases are distributed, to see what issues to suit the judges, then in absolute secrecy to determine the selected judge's impartiality, to eventually ask the judge if he / she wants to take the case, voluntarily, while stating to the judge that he is not disqualified. Despite the lack of authority, it is precisely this Engebretsen has done, which in itself must be classified as last year's resignation.<br />
<br />
I am sorry to repeat myself, but this is important: the Courts Act, requires the opposite of what Engebretsen operates and manages the Oslo District Court, namely that the cases are first distributed (through the coincidence principle, see above) to the given referees, and then might be subject impartiality of trials which initially will be considered by the judge who has been assigned to the case, cf presumably Court Act § § 112 and 113 To put it in other and perhaps simpler words: When a case is brought before a court, the system extracts the judges of the given cases, assign the case to the next judge on the list. On this last point, the case is under the referee's responsibility and management. Any conflicts of interest raised objections to the judge as early as possible, but naturally enough, <b>after</b> the judge has been assigned the case, and of course not so Engebretsen has been the Norwegian people to believe, before the case is assigned to a judge. There are many nuances with regard to impartiality, but these I have chosen to weed out to make the problem more clearly, and hopefully as clear conclusion.<br />
<br />
This Engebretsen-scheme that is contrary to the very foundation of a court uanhengighet, as the allocation process is a part of, namely that a case is assigned to a judge through a system that will ensure that no one can influence this process. Neither the judge nor any other judge can then sit down and opt-out cases because the cases fit into his / her idea of ​​what kind of law that is most handsome to practice. If we are to follow Engebretsen-program, will soon be able to end up with judges who take matters alone to kill a person they do not like, or break down a social system they do not like. It may also arise battle for cases on the judge's room and in the country's judges canteens, which naturally enough leads to klikkdannelser in the courts, those who like the boss - because he gives the many fine things - and therefore do everything they can to like him even more and those who are independent and thus falls outside and remain stuck with the crappy stuff, to put that on the tip.<br />
<br />
Although it appears that Judge Arntzen have understood more of the principles that will create an independent judiciary than Engebretsen did, see her statements to the paper 23 December 2011:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>" It's part of my job as a judge, I shall take the jobs that will be imposed on me"</i></blockquote><br />
this has no effect on the outcome of negotiations Breivik, the trial remains valid. In addition to Arntzen immediate reflex reaction have been:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>"Sorry, Geir. I understand by this that you have "picked" me out. When I am an independent judge, also in relation to you and your wishes, I can not therefore take me to manage this issue. I consider myself to be incompetent."</i></blockquote><br />
Take note also <i>that</i>, in this picture, that a judge who is obviously incompetent and just as obviously have seen this but have failed to withdraw, should be imposed, the Supervisory Committee reprimand for violation of common judge ethics. I understand that some of you are laughing now, with good reason, which shows how wrong it has been to Norway, its judiciary and the ridiculous Supervisory Committee if the Chairman of the Committee and the DA still has not realized that the rest of the people laugh - and suffering - throughout the institution.<br />
<br />
That Arne Lyng obviously have not understood its place in the legal system tells his statements to the press the most about:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>"I was asked on Monday and agreed to the task. I was not in doubt ."</i></blockquote><br />
That he was not in doubt as well just confirms that Lyng on other occasions may have been in doubt, that he has had such issues before, that Heather believes that he can opt out of cases he does not want, and that he therefore did not understand the At least one of the principles that the Court's independence must be built on, namely the principle of random assignment of cases to judges. Now, certainly the Oslo District Court judges think I'm very unfair because the single judge that Stein Husby, Kongsberg never faced these problems, so why would we pick on the Oslo? If so, they reaffirmed that they have not understood the problem.<br />
<br />
There is also no doubt that Engebretsen not know what he's playing with, when he has made ​​it clear to the press that the two judges were Court's <i>first choice</i>. Engebretsen had thus picked out a number of other judges as "the second and third choice" if the first choice was to opt out, see the minutes of the <a href="http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7927722">VG 23 December 2011</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>"They were the court's first choice, and both agreed to work without doubt."</i></blockquote><br />
As stated in the press headlines, the award is clearly influenced by Geir Engebretsen (and those who control him) and his motives. Further confirming the VG's minutes of the press conference that Engebretsen in secret sitting and reviewing cases (at least in the more "interesting" cases), picks out the judges and referee team, evaluates and determines the judges' impartiality (note: Unless the judges know about it, talk about trust), a plan B if the "selected" to say no, offer cases for the "chosen" and leave it up to their own discretion whether to accept the job or not. To put it in simple terms: Engebretsen coup Oslo District Court and the introduction of anarchy in its jurisdiction, this without a single lawyer or journalist has to budge in protest. Amazing.<br />
<br />
The main negotiation against Breivik must be repeated, and the case against Breivik must then necessarily the case be tried again, that is, from the time Engebretsen first took hold in the case. That this will cost taxpayers Norwegian new billion is Engebretsen's problem, not ours.<br />
<br />
When Engebretsen is familiar with the role of judge, and what builds up under an independent judiciary, should be raised both prosecution against him, as well as compensation for the financial loss he has caused the country, and especially all those involved.<br />
<br />
Let me in the end be allowed to warn those of you who have not yet discovered it, that Engebretsen special form of procedure, which seems to have been hailed by the media, is in itself a confirmation that it is neither uncommon nor considered unfortunate among the leaders and deputy leaders, which is alarming. The fact that the press does not react against this, but rather seems that all it is both admirable and amazing that the descendant of the country's old elite now - completely democratic, that is - has been selected to continue in old tracks are equally alarming.<br />
<br />
As you will see from the above, we are not faced with a <i>random assignment of cases</i>, but a <i>deliberate utplukking of judges</i>, which in itself is a confirmation of a judicial system and a court of decay.<br />
<br />
And let me finally get to say a few (perhaps) cryptic words to those who rely on national security etc; independence of the courts take precedence over the Security Act and its regulations . Put another way: Safety and Security Act (and its regulations) is - in so far as these may affect the independence of the courts - clearly in violation of the Constitution, the independence of the courts as provided for in the Constitution.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.lovdata.no/for/sf/fo/to-20010629-0722-007.html">Court Act § 12, third paragraph, § 21, third paragraph, and Safety Regulation, Chapter 7</a> is therefore contrary to the Constitution and its principle that courts should be independent. These aforementioned provisions which involves access to some specially selected judges, can pick out individual judges and judges team for special cases, which is obviously contrary to the Constitution. What these provisions do not explicitly say, but that can be interpreted from the text of the Act and therefore should be a key theme in the discussion about the courts 'and judges' independence, is that many of the nation's judges do not have security clearance, and hence - believe the government - not to trust. These judges will therefore never be asked by Engebretsen & Co. if they fancy a bit juicy case. Do you think that Norway still has an independent judiciary?<br />
<br />
Herman J Berge<br />
<br />
Nuku'alofa, Tonga<br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="center"><b>Update: 07/03/2012</b></div><br />
<br />
<b>Appointment of Judges in Breivik case</b><br />
<br />
We have received some comments, including that the appointment of lay judges is invalid, which is correctly observed.<br />
<br />
The following can be read in Dagbladet's article, mentioned above:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>"Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen and Arne Lyng will judge Behring Anders Breivik, Engebretsen makes it clear. The two will now consider the expert report and the forensic commission's conclusion Breivik's psyche, find three competent legdommere and prepare for Norway's largest litigation."</i></blockquote><br />
NRK in the article mentioned above also understand that it will "work" to find three lay judges:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>"In addition to the two judges, there shall be three lay judges ... work to find three lay judges begins next year."</i></blockquote><br />
If we assume, and we have to do that Dagbladet and NRK minutes is accurate rendition of what played out at the press conference, we see again that no one has understood (objectively, of course, have these guys understand) the rules concerning the allocation of cases and removal of judges (lay judges).<br />
<br />
You must not think of believing that Arntzen, or Heather, or any other judges can initiate a process of picking judges for a trial. There are rules for such things, rules that Engebretsen and his disciples have set aside.<br />
<br />
Lay judges are drawn to the particular case under the rules of Court Act § § 86-92. Court Act <a href="http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19150813-005.html#88">§ 88, first paragraph</a>, explain when it will be judges, and who should do it. In the Courts of Justice Act <a href="http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19150813-005.html#86">§ 86, second paragraph</a>, explained the details of the procedure, which otherwise seems to be in line with Council of Europe Recommendation week. R (94) 12, mentioned above:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>" ... judges should be drawn at random manner among all registered in the samples in the draw circle in which the hearing will be held."</i></blockquote><br />
The provision makes it therefore a simple formality in height will take a few minutes and does not open up for the judges who secretly has been picked for a case to have the great honor of investigating all registered judges, and then pick out them that these two judges believe that <i>Engebretsen</i> says the "best fit" to the case. According to the media, it seems that it is precisely this that has happened, and I can not see any place among the newspapers that Engebretsen, Lyng and Arntzen has gone out and said that newspapers have interpreted them incorrectly.<br />
<br />
There is also no doubt, judges should be drawn, not picked, and it shall be done on the principle of coincidence, in order to avoid - as previously mentioned - that the process will be affected (to the detriment of a fair and equitable treatment of the case) and where simultaneously manifests / documents to the general public that the selection process was actually unaffected.<br />
<br />
Statements in the country's major newspapers confirms beyond any doubt that the selection process was not only influenced, but that it also was completely controlled by the judge where he and then his two chosen consciously been looking around for the judges to the task.<br />
<br />
I mention finally under this section that if later on turns out that the randomly selected lay judges are disqualified, or for other reasons can not serve as a lay judge, regulate the Courts of Justice Act § 92 what then will happen: you summon deputy member of the same sex, and if not it goes, pull again. As it can be read in the Law § 88, first paragraph, the draw made in good time so that you have finished the preliminary procedural issues - such as Engebretsen believes he can best solve its secret utplukkingsprosess - by hovedforhandlingens start.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Telling the judges' assessment of impartiality - no reaction</b><br />
<br />
The second point that should be discussed a little bit wider, is why none of aid lawyers responded that their coordinating lawyers went into the secret and illegal negotiations with the judges that the time was not even chosen to treat Breivik case?<br />
<br />
The following can be read in Dagbladet's article mentioned above:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>"It is a unique case, says Judge Engebretsen, which evaluated the judges impartiality are considered along with defender Geir Lippestad, prosecutors and the three coordinating aid lawyers."</i></blockquote><br />
What was it that drove the best criminal lawyers and government lawyers Sven Holden and Inga Bejer to enter such negotiations with the judge and discuss potential judge's impartiality, knowing that this scheme is unauthorized and illegal, and that the judges were not even aware that they were examined? Just to have said it, the situation would have improved a single paragraph, even if the judges <i>were</i> aware that they were under investigation and perhaps even participated in Engebretsen-scheme, this since they still approved this unauthorized and corruption-friendly process without make the slightest anskrik.<br />
<br />
When we see what these guys have been able to do in this case, where all the people's eyes and ears have been directed against them, and where they still plow the law and Constitution as if it was dirt that was in the ground, the one could only imagine what they are doing less interesting cases "only" affect the individual party.<br />
<br />
We can not accept this kind of social democratic justice (the Communist leader / dictator gets to decide what is best for the people). Nobody in this world will accept the social democratic law [1] when they first get an insight into what this actually is about something, what it means for man, and I encourage you all to demand Breivik negotiations declared invalid, then demand that case should be suspended until a time when Norway has been the order of the courts and Norwegian law. Only at this later stage can then be set to work with - this time - fair and equitable procedures in accordance with law, the Constitution and international agreements binding.<br />
<br />
Herman J Berge<br />
<br />
Nuku'alofa, Tonga<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://www.rettsnorge.no/artikler/2012/Juli/020712_Breivik_forhandlingene_er_ugyldig.htm">Retts Norge/Just Norway</a>]</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-73665965931824447172012-06-29T12:04:00.000-07:002012-07-11T07:26:57.427-07:00Min.Justice: G.Faremo: Complaint RE: Minister of Environment: Bård Vegar Solhjell & Environmental Appeals Board Obstruction of Justice<div align="justify">
<br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<blockquote>
<strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Min.Justice: G.Faremo: Complaint RE: Minister of Environment: Bård Vegar Solhjell & Environmental Appeals Board Obstruction of Justice</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;"></span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">29 June 2012 | Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway Corruption</span></strong></blockquote>
</div>
<br />
<a href="http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIsZ79cJPO1cyVLY0GWePngBv_nXSdmVblnNoFKqxdl_gPtwVyFuHpPvuZ1QeY43zfKr9yU2exCylUjF7axhVBU6qB39YvfWu8El-L9LfJNGQ_L43OkkN4Ky_zRkXM8Foj25zkyiyk-fg/s1600/MinEnv_BardVegarSolhjell_GreteFaremo_Corruption_327x453.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 453px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 327px;" /></a><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: 95%;">MinJustice: Grete Faremo <br />
P.O. Box 8005 Dep, 0030 Oslo<br />
Tel: 22 24 90 90<br />
<br />
CC: Bård Vegar Solhjell, Minister of Environment<br />
CC: Environmental Appeals Board: Appeals of environmental information<br />
<br />
Request Clarification & Response: <br />
<br />
1. Is there any Norwegian law that provides for discrimination of due process court or administrative procedures against Non-Norwegian citizens? <br />
<br />
2. Do courts and administrative bodies in Norway totally shut down for Summer vacations? <br />
<br />
3. Complaint: The Environmental Appeals Board appears to be refusing me access to its administrative due process complaint resolution procedures, and the Minister of Environment appears to approve such discrimination; <br />
<br />
4. If your Administration is not their Supervisory Body, please provide contact details of whom exactly are their Supervisory Body/ies?</span></blockquote>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<a href="http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg10MFjzspwSwjsEcFdEYcrLpiMc8q9bOqVOijewDvpB09KjuB7fsAqKr4sz070jzHlPzAy5W90IARuI0ZFnPW33HKyqNLsANnp5rVHaDCCSoQqRxzwkM2Ij9GwmXXJrz4_OANKQ6PobVQ/s1600/NOCorruption_NorgeKorrupsjon_Gov-Pol-AdvFor-Courts_572x125.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 125px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 572px;" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 1:11 PM<br />
To: 'GFaremo'; 'Ch.Staff: Morten Ruud'; 'Admin: Hans Ostgaard'; 'Comm: Gunnar Johansen'; 'Int Director: Tonje Meinich'; 'Office'<br />
Cc: 'Post miljoklagenemnda'; 'MinEnv'; 'Head of Comm: Jon Berg'; 'Sec.Gen: T Radahl'; 'DirGen: H.Andenaes'; 'DirGen: Jon Rorvik'; 'Aftenposten:'; 'BTidende'; 'Dagbladet'; 'NRK'; 'TV2'; 'VG'; 'Addresseavisen'<br />
<b>Subject: Min.Justice: G.Faremo: Complaint RE: Minister of Environment: Bård Vegar Solhjell & Miljoklagenemnda Obstruction of Justice</b><br />
<br />
MinJustice: Grete Faremo <br />
P.O. Box 8005 Dep, 0030 Oslo<br />
Tel: 22 24 90 90<br />
<br />
CC: Bård Vegar Solhjell, Minister of Environment<br />
CC: Environmental Appeals Board: Appeals of environmental information<br />
<br />
Request Clarification & Response: <br />
<br />
1. Is there any Norwegian law that provides for discrimination of due process court or administrative procedures against Non-Norwegian citizens? <br />
<br />
2. Do courts and administrative bodies in Norway totally shut down for Summer vacations? <br />
<br />
3. Complaint: The Environmental Appeals Board appears to be refusing me access to its administrative due process complaint resolution procedures, and the Minister of Environment appears to approve such discrimination; <br />
<br />
4. If your Administration is not their Supervisory Body, please provide contact details of whom exactly are their Supervisory Body/ies?<br />
<br />
Please find complaint details in attached <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120629_minjust-gfaremo?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>.<br />
<br />
Respectfully Submitted<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
Habeus Mentem: Right to Legal Sanity<br />
Norway Corruption | Norge Korrupsjon<br />
<a href="http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/">http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/</a></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<a href="http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtCF1Py_BP9CYH5yVNKa9nGlRiRH0fKdB97Vmq32x6jX_D58mEfFJVqoqxe62-tUsc6c31-Q0UMzQQhoKDx4lyX84J8cn2ZJ6aFcpf8mS73Tg7loSk8Y9Xxy46E16BSfkZoYofQcMxaxM/s1600/NOCorruption_NorgeKorrupsjon_Media-NRK-Aftenposten-TV2_572x115.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 115px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 572px;" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Dear Minister Faremo,<br />
<br />
Request Clarification & Response: <br />
<blockquote>
1. Is there any Norwegian law that provides for discrimination of due process court or administrative procedures against Non-Norwegian citizens? <br />
<br />
2. Do courts and administrative bodies in Norway totally shut down for Summer vacations? <br />
<br />
3. Complaint: The Environmental Appeals Board appears to be refusing me access to its administrative due process complaint resolutionprocedures, and the Minister of Environment appears to approve such discrimination; <br />
<br />
4. If your Administration is not their Supervisory Body, please provide contact details of whom exactly are their Supervisory Body/ies?</blockquote>
<br />
<b>Complaint: Ministry of Environment: & Environmental Appeals Board Obstruction of Justice of my Complaint for Review of Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) sent to Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2, VG and Addresseavisen: RE: Censorship in Norway’s Media: (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny </b><br />
<br />
On 25 May 2012, <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/search/label/*%20Complaints%3A%20Media%20Censorship">Requests for Access to Environment and Health Information</a> were submitted to the editors of Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2, VG and Addresseavisen requesting information related to their decision-making to censor information related to the (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny. Each respondent was additionally provided a copy of the 22 April 2012 Earth Day: “If It Bleads, It Leads” Media’s Population-Terrorism Connection Report (42pgs). The Media Publications were requested to provide the requested information by 17:00 hrs on 11 June 2012. As of 17:00 hrs on 18 June 2012, but declined to do so. <br />
<br />
On 18 June 2012 a <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/06/environment-appeals-brd-appeal.html">complaint was filed with the Environmental Appeals Board</a>: Appeals of environmental information. <br />
<br />
On 22 June 2012, the Environmental Appeals Board responded that they <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/06/update-environment-appeals-brd-appeal.html">had deleted the complaint</a> without reading it. <br />
<blockquote>
From: Post miljoklagenemnda<br />
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 3:03 PM<br />
To: Habeus Mentem<br />
Subject: Ikke lest: Env. Appeals Brd: Appeal: RE: Addresseavisen | Aftenposten | BTidende | Dagbladet | NRK | TV2 | VG<br />
<br />
Meldingen<br />
Til: Post miljoklagenemnda<br />
Emne: Env. Appeals Brd: Appeal: RE: Addresseavisen | Aftenposten | BTidende | Dagbladet | NRK | TV2 | VG<br />
Sendt: 18. juni 2012 23:41:11 (UTC+01.00) Amsterdam, Berlin, Bern, Roma, Stockholm, Wien<br />
<br />
ble slettet uten å ha vært lest 22. juni 2012 15:02:32 (UTC+01.00) Amsterdam, Berlin, Bern, Roma, Stockholm, Wien.</blockquote>
No reasons have been provided by the Environment Appeals Board for their decision to delete my complaint, allegedly without reading it. Nor is it registered on their Inkomne Sake pages: “Saker til behandling nå” and neither on their Vedtak/Decisions page. <br />
<br />
On <b>25 June 2012</b> a <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/06/update-environment-appeals-brd-appeal.html">complaint was filed to the Minister of Environment</a>: Bård Vegar Solhjell requesting the Ministry to please inform me whether “the deletion was an error; or if not: written reasons for the deletion of my complaint.”<br />
<br />
On <b>25 June 2012</b> the Environmental Appeals Board (no name provided) responded. They did not apologize at all for the deletion of my complaint, nor did they provide written reasons for their decision. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>
We hereby confirm the receipt of your inquiry.<br />
<br />
Reference no: 2012/708 - 1<br />
<br />
Documentation Services, Records Management Climate and Pollution Agency<br />
E-mail: postmottak@klif.no<br />
Phone: + 47 22 57 34 00 - Fax: +47 22 67 67 06 Postboks 8100 Dep, 0032 Oslo (Strømsveien 96)</blockquote>
<br />
On <b>26 June 2012</b> I responded requesting clarification regarding the so-called Reference Number and why I had not been issued with a Case Number.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Documentation Services, Records Management Climate and Pollution Agency<br />
E-mail: postmottak@klif.no<br />
Phone: + 47 22 57 34 00 - Fax: +47 22 67 67 06 Postboks 8100 Dep, 0032 Oslo (Strømsveien 96)<br />
<br />
RE: Env. Appeals Brd: Appeal: RE: Addresseavisen | Aftenposten | BTidende | Dagbladet | NRK | TV2 | VG<br />
<br />
This is rather unusual, in my experience. <br />
<br />
In South Africa if you submit a complaint to a court; you are given a Case Number for the case. If there is an error in the application, the court clerks inform you of the specific error that allegedly requires your correction. <br />
<br />
Yet you have provided a 'reference number for an inquiry', with no additional information or any reasons for not providing a court case number. <br />
<br />
Is "2012/708 - 1" the case number for my complaint? <br />
<br />
It does not appear so to me, since the case numbers of cases on your website are numbered differently; such as:<br />
<br />
Sak: 2012/1 Sak: 2011/5 Sak: 2011/4<br />
Sak: 2011/3 Sak: 2011/1<br />
<br />
There is already a case: Sak: 2012/1; so logically this would be Sak: 2012/2.<br />
Strangely, you have cases whose final decisions are not published: <br />
<br />
Sak: 2011/2 Sak: 2010/2 Sak: 2010/1<br />
Sak: 2008/04 Sak: 2008/02 Sak: 2008/01<br />
<br />
Could you please clarify what "2012/708 - 1" means, what the case number is to be; and your Norwegian court process for proceeding.</blockquote>
<br />
On <b>28 June 2012</b> the Environmental Appeals Board responded that they were on summer vacation and would only answer my questions after the summer vacation.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Thank you for your inquiry. Unfortunately, we will not be able to answer your inquiry until after the summer vacation. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.<br />
<br />
Secretary for the Environmental Information Appeals Board,<br />
Climate and Pollution Agency<br />
E-mail: post@miljoklagenemnda.no<br />
Phone: + 47 22 57 34 00 - Fax: +47 22 67 67 06 Postboks 8100 Dep, 0032 Oslo (Strømsveien 96)</blockquote>
<br />
On <b>28 June 2012</b> I responded to enquire when exactly the summer vacation was ending?<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Dear Ms. Nameless (Is that so you can avoid being held accountable?)<br />
Secretary for the Environmental Information Appeals Board<br />
<br />
When exactly is the end of your summer vacation? </blockquote>
<br />
On <b>28 June 2012</b> I contacted a friend in Norway to enquire whether this was standard policy procedure:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
I want your advice. I filed a few requests for environmental and health information to six of the largest NO media publications. They refused to provide me the information.. so I filed the request to the Environmental Appeals board. At first they deleted my complaint, until I filed a complaint to the Minister of Environment asking why my complaint was deleted. Then they refused to provide me with a case number, only an 'acknowledgement of inquiry' number. When I filed another complaint to the Ministry of Environment, the Environmental Appeals Board responded that they are on summer vacation and cannot provide me answers to my complaint, not even a case number until after the summer holidays. They have so far refused to say when their summer holidays ends. <br />
<br />
Can this be true? Not even in third world africa do courts shut down for christmas holidays; they have a skeleton staff who provide all the usual services. <br />
<br />
Are they just fucking me around; or is this true?</blockquote>
<br />
He responded:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Perhaps the rules are different for non-residents. Perhaps you don't have the same rights to be answered as people living in Norway.</blockquote>
<br />
My response:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
"Perhaps the rules are different for non-residents. Perhaps you don't have the same rights to be answered as people living in Norway." <br />
<br />
If so, thats okay; but then that would be a statutary policy; and they can say 'according to such and such statute, you don't have the same rights as people in norway and we don't have to answer your complaints'. <br />
<br />
If there is no such statutory policy, and this policy is purely for me (cause they don't want to deal with the issues in my complaint) then its discrimination. <br />
<br />
I imagine from your answer you are implying that this court is not shutdown for summer vacation for Norwegians who file a complaint?</blockquote>
<br />
His response:<br />
<blockquote>
I have no idea what the routines of Norwegian courts are vis-à-vis summer vacations. As for the courts administration not volunteering information to you that you have not specifically asked about you have experienced this previously, so you may have to ask whether you have diminished rights compared to Norwegian citizens or residents of Norway in order to get that clarified</blockquote>
<br />
Respectfully Submitted<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity<br />
Norway Corruption | Norge Korrupsjon<br />
<a href="http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/">http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/</a><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120629_minjust-gfaremo?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>]</span></strong></blockquote>
</div>
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-33883508957361881222012-06-25T15:22:00.000-07:002012-07-11T07:26:57.402-07:00[Update] Environment Appeals Brd: Appeal: RE: Addresseavisen | Aftenposten | Bergense Tidende | Dagbladet | NRK | TV2 | VG<div align="justify"><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">[<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/search/label/*%20Complaints%3A%20Miljokagnemnda">Update</a>] Request to Minister of Environment: Bård Vegar Solhjell: RE: Environment Appeals Brd: Appeal: RE: Addresseavisen | Aftenposten | Bergense Tidende | Dagbladet | NRK | TV2 | VG </span></span><br />
</strong> <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law); RE: Censorship in Norway’s Media: (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 25 June 2012</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/search/label/*%20Complaints%3A%20Miljokagnemnda"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqlCXbr3thbtBh3C2mMV02gusqTqUivhyFq29oyj0tCi-2CbUwIqEwxg3Pn0NLYZZdPjaLoAXkEV7HvoYhyU0SL9gt9AIjnVmLd3czWNw46LrKEINn_dillmn28YyObFYdUQLcdeqx3y8/s1600/Aftenposten-Adresseavisen-tv2-vg-nrk-bergenstidende_274x614.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 614px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 274px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 95%;"><b>Environmental Appeals Board: Documentation Services, Records Management:</b> We hereby confirm the receipt of your inquiry. Reference no: 2012/708 - 1...<br />
<br />
Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law); RE: Censorship in Norway’s Media: (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny<br />
<br />
Request for Information Questions: <br />
<br />
[1] Editors decision-making justification for censorship of the Norway v. Breivik Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection documentation provided to their publication in 13 May 2012 email: <b><a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/1278-norwegian-editors-journalists.html">Breivik Acquittal Justified by Media's Massive Censorship of Oslo Crt Proceedings</a></b>? <br />
<br />
[2] (a) The total number of articles published by their publication either in print or online which refer to Breivik’s alleged ‘insanity’; and (b) the number of these articles which - for fairness, impartiality and scientific objectivity - include a ‘Critical Psychiatry’ perspective, such as: ‘The Myth of Mental Illness’, the Marketing of Madness, the use of Psychiatry as social control, and Psychiatrists Legal Testimony being equivalent to that of ‘Whores of the Court’: “psychobabble with scientific foundations equal to horoscope charts… the science behind it all is nonexistent”. <br />
<br />
[3] The total amount of advertising revenue received by your publication from Pharmaceutical Corporations per year, over the past five years. <br />
<br />
<b>Environment-Population:</b> Dr. Michael Maher Ph.D thesis documents how the media censors the Environment Population Connection: <b>How & Why Journalists Avoid the Environment-Population Connection</b> (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>)<br />
<br />
<b>Ecological Source of Political & Economic Problems:</b> “The economic and political problems with which we concern ourselves are merely manifestations of our ecological predicament -- they are symptoms, not the disease.” – Chris Clugston: <a href="http://in-gods-name.blogspot.com/2011/12/peak-nnr-scarcity-humanitys-last.html">Scarcity: Humanity's Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Non-Renewable Natural Resources and its implications and consequences for humanity</a> (<a href="http://www.nnrscarcity.com/">NNR Scarcity</a>) | <b>US Naval Services Long-Term Study:</b> <a href="http://in-gods-name.blogspot.com/2012/05/us-naval-services-long-term-study.html">Global Tipping Points on Food, Water, Energy, Pollution, Population, & Natural Resources & Population Explosion: The Most Powerful Force on Earth</a> | <b>1996: US Army War College: Parameters:</b> <a href="http://in-gods-name.blogspot.com/2012/05/1996-us-army-war-college-parameters.html">The Culture of Future Conflict: Overpopulation & Resource Scarcity will be the Direct Cause of Confrontation, Conflict, and War</a>.</span></blockquote><br /><a name='more'></a>
<br />
<div align="center"><br />
<a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJZPj_1SWXWvyLlmRAgy0CECpSqhbfzctqlXhs97tHB4maoYbOMEvkQ9wg8GGeJtrggM9CDTSYcuf0w6P8PMn3xY-0nr91BulyjINw0y0Hspz-SGwc5NgHa1VtgcBwZpc3PRRkdJ8Mrs/s1600/NorwayVBreivik_FleurdeLis_MargaretHagen_556x119.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div><blockquote><br />
From: Lara Johnstone <br />
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 12:06 PM<br />
To: 'MinEnv: Bård Vegar Solhjell'; 'Jon Berg'; 'DirGen Haege Andenaes'; 'SecGen: Tom Radahl'; 'DirGen: Jon Rorvik'<br />
Cc: 'Env. Appeals Brd'<br />
<b>Subject: MinEnv: Bård Vegar Solhjel: Complaint: Environmental Appeals Board / Klagenemnda for miljøinformasjon</b><br />
<br />
Bård Vegar Solhjell<br />
Minister of Environment<br />
The Ministry of the Environment <br />
<br />
Head of Communications Jon Berg<br />
Director General Hæge Andenæs<br />
Secretary General Tom Rådahl<br />
Director General Jon Rørvik<br />
<br />
Dear Minister,<br />
<br />
<b>Complaint: Environmental Appeals Board Deletion of my Complaint for Review of Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) sent to Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2, VG and Addresseavisen: RE: Censorship in Norway’s Media: (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny</b><br />
<br />
On 25 May 2012, Requests for Access to Environment and Health Information were submitted to the editors of Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2, VG and Addresseavisen requesting information related to their decision-making to censor information related to the (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny. Each respondent was additionally provided a copy of the 22 April 2012 Earth Day: “If It Bleads, It Leads” Media’s Population-Terrorism Connection Report (42pgs). The Media Publications were requested to provide the requested information by 17:00 hrs on 11 June 2012. As of 17:00 hrs on 18 June 2012, but declined to do so. <br />
<br />
On 18 June 2012 a complaint was filed with the Environmental Appeals Board : Appeals of environmental information.<br />
<br />
On 22 June 2012, the Environmental Appeals Board responded that they had deleted the complaint without reading it. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>----------<br />
From: Post miljoklagenemnda [mailto:Post@miljoklagenemnda.no] <br />
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 3:03 PM<br />
To: Habeus Mentem<br />
Subject: Ikke lest: Env. Appeals Brd: Appeal: RE: Addresseavisen | Aftenposten | BTidende | Dagbladet | NRK | TV2 | VG<br />
<br />
Meldingen<br />
Til: Post miljoklagenemnda<br />
Emne: Env. Appeals Brd: Appeal: RE: Addresseavisen | Aftenposten | BTidende | Dagbladet | NRK | TV2 | VG<br />
Sendt: 18. juni 2012 23:41:11 (UTC+01.00) Amsterdam, Berlin, Bern, Roma, Stockholm, Wien<br />
<br />
ble slettet uten å ha vært lest 22. juni 2012 15:02:32 (UTC+01.00) Amsterdam, Berlin, Bern, Roma, Stockholm, Wien.<br />
----------</blockquote><br />
No reasons have been provided by the Environment Appeals Board for their decision to delete my complaint, allegedly without reading it. Nor is it registered on their Inkomne Sake pages: “Saker til behandling nå” and neither on their Vedtak/Decisions page. <br />
<br />
Please could I be informed whether the deletion was an error; or if not: written reasons for the deletion of my complaint.<br />
<br />
Respectfully Submitted <br />
<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity<br />
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/">http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
________________________________<br />
From: Post miljoklagenemnda <br />
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 3:07 PM<br />
To: Lara<br />
<b>Subject: RE: Env. Appeals Brd: Appeal: RE: Addresseavisen | Aftenposten | BTidende | Dagbladet | NRK | TV2 | VG</b><br />
<br />
<br />
We hereby confirm the receipt of your inquiry.<br />
<br />
Reference no: 2012/708 - 1<br />
<br />
Sincerely yours,<br />
Documentation Services, Records Management<br />
Climate and Pollution Agency<br />
E-mail: postmottak@klif.no <br />
Phone: + 47 22 57 34 00 - Fax: +47 22 67 67 06 <br />
Postboks 8100 Dep, 0032 Oslo (Strømsveien 96) <br />
<br />
For more information about us, please visit <a href="http://www.klif.no/">http://www.klif.no</a> <br />
Information about the state of the environment in Norway: <a href="http://www.environment.no/">http://www.environment.no/</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
__________________________<br />
From: Lara Johnstone<br />
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:51 AM<br />
To: 'Post miljoklagenemnda'; 'postmottak@klif.no'<br />
Cc: 'SecGen: Tom Radahl'; 'HeadComm: Jon Berg'; 'DirGen: Org: Jon Rorvik'; 'DirGen: Intnl Coop: Hege Andenas'; 'Arne Blix'; 'Ed: Hilde Haugsjerd'; 'Trine Eilertsen'; 'Hans Tore Bjerkaas'; 'Alf Hildrum'; 'Torry Pedersen'<br />
<b>Subject: RE: Env. Appeals Brd: Appeal: RE: Addresseavisen | Aftenposten | BTidende | Dagbladet | NRK | TV2 | VG</b><br />
<br />
Documentation Services, Records Management<br />
Climate and Pollution Agency<br />
E-mail: postmottak@klif.no <br />
Phone: + 47 22 57 34 00 - Fax: +47 22 67 67 06 <br />
Postboks 8100 Dep, 0032 Oslo (Strømsveien 96)<br />
<br />
Dear Sirs/Ladies:<br />
<br />
<b>RE: Env. Appeals Brd: Appeal: RE: Addresseavisen | Aftenposten | BTidende | Dagbladet | NRK | TV2 | VG</b><br />
<br />
This is rather unusual, in my experience. <br />
<br />
In South Africa if you submit a complaint to a court; you are given a Case Number for the case. If there is an error in the application, the court clerks inform you of the specific error that allegedly requires your correction. <br />
<br />
Yet you have provided a 'reference number for an inquiry', with no additional information or any reasons for not providing a court case number. <br />
<br />
Is "2012/708 - 1" the case number for my complaint? <br />
<br />
It does not appear so to me, since the case numbers of cases on your website are numbered differently; such as:<br />
<br />
Sak: 2012/1<br />
Sak: 2011/5<br />
Sak: 2011/4<br />
Sak: 2011/3<br />
Sak: 2011/1<br />
<br />
There is already a case: Sak: 2012/1; so logically this would be Sak: 2012/2.<br />
<br />
Strangely, you have cases whose final decisions are not published: <br />
<br />
Sak: 2011/2<br />
Sak: 2010/2<br />
Sak: 2010/1<br />
Sak: 2008/04<br />
Sak: 2008/02<br />
Sak: 2008/01<br />
<br />
Could you please clarify what "2012/708 - 1" means, what the case number is to be; and your Norwegian court process for proceeding.<br />
<br />
<br />
Respectfully,<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone</blockquote><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law); RE: Censorship in Norway’s Media: (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny</span></span></strong> </blockquote></div><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Fra: Habeus Mentem <br />
Sendt: 18. juni 2012 23:41<br />
Til: Post miljoklagenemnda<br />
Kopi: 'Arne Blix'; 'Ed: Hilde Haugsjerd'; 'Trine Eilertsen'; 'John Arne Markussen'; 'Hans Tore Bjerkaas'; 'Alf Hildrum'; 'Torry Pedersen'<br />
<b>Emne: Env. Appeals Brd: Appeal: RE: Addresseavisen | Aftenposten | BTidende | Dagbladet | NRK | TV2 | VG</b><br />
<br />
<b>Environmental Appeals Board: </b><br />
Appeals of environmental information, <br />
c / o Secretariat, Climate and Pollution, <br />
PO Box 8100 Dep, 0032 OSLO, <br />
E-mail: post@miljoklagenemnda.no<br />
<br />
<b>Respondents: </b><br />
Adresseavisen: Editor: Arne Blix<br />
Aftenposten: Editor: Hilde Haugsgjerd<br />
Bergens Tidende: Editor: Trine Eilertsen<br />
Dagbladet: Editor: John Arne Markussen<br />
NRK: Editor: Hans Tore Bjerkaas<br />
TV2: Editor: Alf Hildrum<br />
VG: Editor: Torry Pedersen<br />
<br />
<br />
Dear Sirs,<br />
<br />
<b>Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Censorship in Norway’s Media: (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny </b><br />
<br />
On 25 May 2012, correspondence was submitted to each of the respondents requesting information related to their decision-making to censor information related to the (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny. Each respondent was additionally provided a copy of the 22 April 2012 Earth Day: “If It Bleads, It Leads” Media’s Population-Terrorism Connection Report (42pgs)<br />
<br />
Respondents were requested to provide such information by 17:00 hrs on 11 June 2012. As of 17:00 hrs on 18 June 2012, all respondents have declined to respond or to provide the information requested. <br />
<br />
I am unaware what the legal justifications for the respondents refusal to provide the information. <br />
<br />
As detailed in the requests to the respondents, the information is requested as a matter of public interest for research and transparency problem solving purposes.<br />
<br />
Respectfully Submitted,<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity<br />
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/">http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/ </a><br />
<br />
Encl: <br />
[A] <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_adresseavisen?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">Addresseavisen: Req for Access to Environment and Health Information ITO S.28 & S.10</a><br />
[B] <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_aftenposten?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">Aftenposten: Req for Access to Environment and Health Information ITO S.28 & S.10</a><br />
[C] <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_bergenstidende?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">BergensTidende: Req for Access to Environment and Health Information ITO S.28 & S.10</a><br />
[D] <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_dagbladet?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">Dagbladet: Req for Access to Environment and Health Information ITO S.28 & S.10</a><br />
[E] <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_nrk?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">NRK: Req for Access to Environment and Health Information ITO S.28 & S.10</a><br />
[F] <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_tv2?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">TV2: Req for Access to Environment and Health Information ITO S.28 & S.10</a><br />
[G] <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_vg?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">VG: Req for Access to Environment and Health Information ITO S.28 & S.10</a><br />
[H] <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120422_bleads-leads?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">22 April: Earth Day: Media’s Population-Terrorism Connection Report (42.pg)</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/180612_env-app-brd?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a> :: <a href="http://www.miljoklagenemnda.no/">Miljoklagenemnda</a>]</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG35_mG6caC4KBxsQJyTNhzHyA6-FQtZYnz5IBLl54ORu_a-boz0PBm8YdS-VFQ4KFCJO7VNfP5YqY4Wihq9GEzTHHgCMI0I_4LLD7wdGKQFqubGiB-gXfD5pJ4p6vMDhnlhn-1EMJtAY/s1600/TolerantNorwayPolPsychBreivik_ApartheidMandelaTreason_897x596.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWMyLbwkIUbk76EGOkStxXbt3U23JYE9udiDNPVgJhiFUsKD5W1nEsV6m48kuuqlr2JXWqlLk-QJLqc3tMJKd8_gbfiWLODJK-lckkTSqwxEgyVg254soN3Q-uLJydzBqjHQfNwpjbdoE/s1600/TolerantNorwayPolPsychBreivik_ApartheidMandelaTreason_600x399.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 399px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 600px;" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-26429348596467262772012-06-22T15:20:00.000-07:002012-07-11T02:30:52.090-07:00[Update] 170 Bar Association Complaints filed against Norway v. Breivik Attorneys: Participation in StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial to Deny Defendent & Victims a Treason Trial<div align="justify"><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">[<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/search/label/*%20Complaints%3A%20Advokat%20Foreningen">Update</a>] 170 Bar Association Complaints filed against Norway v. Breivik Attorneys (Defendant: 4; Victims Families: 166)</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Norsk Advokat Foreningen/Bar Association: Complaints: Violation of: CCBE Code of Ethics: Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial, to (1) deny Defendant his Political Necessity Treason Trial; and (2) support Corruption of the Court. Complaint Submitted: [<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/06/norsk-advokat-foreningen-complaints-my.html">here</a>]. Subsequent Correspondence to Bar Association: Disciplinary Committee & Disciplinary Board: [<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/06/bar-association-complaints-filed.html">01</a>] </span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 21 June 2012</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhV-9CJOFtf3uRZzCGZs4yCIkT_8aCDPRII3RYi6avsVpe0M5LIWwQVdQKaapVpJCj8Iw0jkNiqMHoZhMDNNSTky5529ShQ5KWoLD7kAGlAXiRBZ_whOZ1I1aMtBeAPwOIouMqU_mlxDvM/s1600/NorskAdvFor-BarAsso_170Complaints_355x409.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 409px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 355px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 95%;">From: Disiplinærnemnden for advokater: With reference to <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/06/bar-association-complaints-filed.html">your e-mail of 20th of June</a>, and your previous 170 complaints sent the Disciplinary Board last week. <br />
<br />
From: Advokatforeningen: With reference to your <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/06/bar-association-complaints-filed.html">e-mail below</a>, and your previous 170 complaints send the Norwegian Bar Association's Disciplinary Committee last week. <br />
<br />
From: Habeus 4 Mentem: Right to Legal Sanity: <br />
<br />
[1] Please provide The Bar Association Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for demanding complainants waste paper, ink and non-renewable transporation resources by printing, signing and mailing complaints to the Bar Association; and refusing digitally signed complaints submitted by email, which are much more beneficial to the environment, and are exact environmentally digital copies of print versions? <br />
<br />
[A] Does the Bar Association endorse the European Court of Human Rights (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom) principle that every individual who files a legal application to a Norwegian Court has a right to a timeous and precise written response informing them whether their application has been accepted, or if denied, reasons for such denial, or to inform the individual of additional information required before the complaint can be accepted? </span></blockquote><br />
<br /><a name='more'></a>
<br />
<div align="center"><a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJZPj_1SWXWvyLlmRAgy0CECpSqhbfzctqlXhs97tHB4maoYbOMEvkQ9wg8GGeJtrggM9CDTSYcuf0w6P8PMn3xY-0nr91BulyjINw0y0Hspz-SGwc5NgHa1VtgcBwZpc3PRRkdJ8Mrs/s1600/NorwayVBreivik_FleurdeLis_MargaretHagen_556x119.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div><br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Request to Norsk Advokaat Foreningen: Disciplinary Complaints: for Environment and Health Information ITO S.10 and S28</span></span></strong> </blockquote></div><br />
<blockquote>From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] <br />
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 2:04 PM<br />
To: 'Inger Johanne Hammer'; 'Baard Amundsen'<br />
Cc: NO: Lippestad: Tord; Crt: Victims: Siv Hallgren; Crt: Victims: Frode Elgesem; Crt: Victims: Mette Yvonne Larsen<br />
<b>Subject: RE: Den Norske Advokatforening: Berit Reiss-Andersen: Req for Env. & Health Info ITO S.28 and S.10</b><br />
<br />
Sec./Exec. Officer: Inger-Johanna Hammer<br />
Comm: Baard Amundsen<br />
The Norwegian Bar Association | Den Norske Advokatforening Juristenes Hus Kristian Augusts gate 9, 0164 Oslo<br />
Tel: 22 03 50 50 | Fax: 22 11 53 25<br />
E: ijh@advokatforeningen.no, ba@advokatforeningen.no <br />
<br />
Dear Ms. Hammer,<br />
<br />
CC: Norway v. Breivik Defence (4) & Victims Family Attorneys (166)<br />
<br />
Many thanks for your email sent Friday, June 22, 2012 10:03 AM. <br />
<br />
My apologies. Last time I contacted the Norwegian Bar Association, they kindly informed me whether the individual was a Bar Association member or not. I thought this was a service you provide; but clearly I am mistaken. I imagine the majority of complaints filed are member of your Bar Association; and you are simply stalling for time to obstruct the procedure of addressing my complaints. Its very common masculine insecurity (reason and logic) legal behaviour when a lawyer does not want to address the facts in any individuals complaint. Nevertheless I shall do the search and confirm which are members of the Bar Association. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Re: Legal Interest & Bar Association Complaints Policy: </b><br />
<br />
You have not answered my request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) in terms of the Bar Association's Legal Interest and Complaints policies: <br />
<br />
I repeat:<br />
<br />
<b>[2] The Bar Association 'Legal Interest' Decision Making Justifications: </b><br />
<br />
[A] Does the Bar Association endorse the European Court of Human Rights (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom) principle that every individual who files a legal application to a Norwegian Court has a right to a timeous and precise written response informing them whether their application has been accepted, or if denied, reasons for such denial, or to inform the individual of additional information required before the complaint can be accepted? <br />
<br />
[B] If so, if or when any Judge refuses to provide any applicant in any court proceeding that any Norwegian Lawyer is a participant in, with such prompt written response, it is the duty of honourable and ethical Lawyers to uphold the respect for impartial court due process proceedings to object to, and expose such discrimatory corrupt practices being practiced by a Norwegian Magistrate or Judge? <br />
<br />
[C] In consideration for [A] and [B], could the Bar Association be detailed specific about how and why it alleges that my complaints do not meet the Bar Association's 'legal interest requirement'?<br />
<br />
[D] Is the Bar Association's 'Legal Interest' Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of the Human-Farming-EcoSuicide-Kaffir-Legal-Matrix?: Whether the Bar Association's decision-making to allege that my complaint did not meet the 'Bar Association's 'legal interest requirement' had anything to do with silencing, suppressing or obstructing my legal applications to the court in this matter expoing the Human Farming Kaffir Legal Matrix: the Iron Mountain 'War is a Racket Military Industrial Complex's centralisation of power and tyranny , founded on Kaffir Law/Legislation which provides citizens with the Inalienable Eco-Suicide '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, a Marxist/Capitalist Traitor Hunting licence, etc, etc. <br />
<br />
[D] Is the Bar Association's 'Legal Interest' Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of Norway's endorsement of the Legal Establishment's use of Whores of the Court Psychiatrists for the purposes of White Supremacy cultural supremacy and social control; ignoring the reality their 'Whores of the Court' Bullshit the public and the court with "psychobabble with scientific foundations equal to horoscope charts. the science behind it all is nonexistent"?<br />
<br />
<b>[3] The Bar Association Environmental Principles Decision-Making </b><br />
<br />
[1] Please provide The Bar Association Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for demanding complainants waste paper, ink and non-renewable transporation resources by printing, signing and mailing complaints to the Bar Association; and refusing digitally signed complaints submitted by email, which are much more beneficial to the environment, and are exact environmentally digital copies of print versions? <br />
<br />
[2] Please provide The Bar Association Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for printed complaints; when even third world goverments and Bar Associations environmental policies allow courts and organisations to accept email complaints?<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>ECHR: Rule of law requires adequately Precise and Accessible Legislation:</b><br />
<br />
In <i>Lithgow & others v United Kingdom</i>, the European Court of Human Rights held that the rule of law requires provisions of legislation to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law:<br />
<br />
"As regards the phrase "subject to the conditions provided for by law", it requires in the first place the existence of and compliance with adequately accessible and sufficiently precise domestic legal provisions (see, amongst other authorities, the alone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 31-33, paras. 66-68)."<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion Repeated: </b><br />
<br />
If an individual files a legal application to a Norwegian Court; does the Bar Association support the due process principles; that <br />
<br />
1. such an individual has a right to a prompt and clear written response from the Court informing the applicant their legal application has been accepted or if not, whether further information is required or what is required from the individual for such legal application to be accepted<br />
<br />
2. When any legal applicant is denied such due process written response by the court; it is the honourable duty of all legal parties involved in the matter to uphold the respect for due process and the law, by demanding the Judge provide the applicant with a clear and written response to their application. <br />
<br />
We live on a finite resource planet and not even Bar Associations have the right to believe that resources are infinite and to demand 'complaints' procedures that require complainants to waste scarce resources, when alternative procedures exist that are more environmentally resource friendly.<br />
<br />
Respectfully Submitted<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity<br />
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/">http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/</a><br />
<br />
<br />
________________________________________<br />
From: Inger Johanne Hammer <br />
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 10:03 AM<br />
To: Lara<br />
<b>Subject: RE: Den Norske Advokatforening: Berit Reiss-Andersen: Req for Env. & Health Info ITO S.28 and S.10</b><br />
<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone,<br />
<br />
With reference to your e-mail below, and your previous 170 complaints send the Norwegian Bar Association's Disciplinary Committee last week. <br />
<br />
Which lawyers that are members of the Norwegian Bar Association, can be found on the members list at the associations' website. We refer you to that list, where you can search up whether a lawyer is a member or not; <a href="http://www.advokatforeningen.no/Sok/Sok-i-medlemslisten/">http://www.advokatforeningen.no/Sok/Sok-i-medlemslisten/</a> <br />
<br />
On your question regarding legal interest, we refer you to the Disciplinary Committee's Regulations § 3 and to our e-mail of June 19th where all relevant information has been provided. Should you have any questions in regards to the complaints system, you can find further information under this link <a href="http://www.advokatenhjelperdeg.no/artikler/complaint-against-an-attorny/">http://www.advokatenhjelperdeg.no/artikler/complaint-against-an-attorny/</a> <br />
<br />
As we already have informed you about, your potential complaints must be send by ordinary mail due to the fact that the Norwegian Bar Association's Disciplinary Committee does not accept any complaints sent by e-mail.<br />
<br />
Med vennlig hilsen<br />
Inger-Johanne Hammer<br />
sekretær / Secretary<br />
ADVOKATFORENINGEN / THE NORWEGIAN BAR ASSOCIATION<br />
Kristian Augusts gate 9, N-0164 Oslo T + 47 22 03 50 50 E ijh@advokatforeningen.no <br />
www.advokatforeningen.no www.advokatenhjelperdeg.no <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120620_nadvfor-dc?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a> :: <a href="http://www.advokatforeningen.no/Etiske-regler/">Norsk Bar Assoc: Ethics</a>]</span></strong></blockquote><br />
<div align="center"><a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJZPj_1SWXWvyLlmRAgy0CECpSqhbfzctqlXhs97tHB4maoYbOMEvkQ9wg8GGeJtrggM9CDTSYcuf0w6P8PMn3xY-0nr91BulyjINw0y0Hspz-SGwc5NgHa1VtgcBwZpc3PRRkdJ8Mrs/s1600/NorwayVBreivik_FleurdeLis_MargaretHagen_556x119.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div><br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Request to Judge Ernst Moe's: Disciplinary Board: for Environment and Health Information ITO S.10 and S28</span></span></strong> </blockquote></div><br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Request to Judge Ernst Moe's: Disciplinary Board: for Environment and Health Information ITO S.10 and S28</span></span></strong> </blockquote></div><br />
<blockquote>From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] <br />
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 8:05 PM<br />
To: 'Disiplinærnemnden for advokater'; 'Judge Ernst Moe'<br />
<b>Subject: RE: Disciplinary Board Head: Judge Ernst Moe: Req for Env. & Health Info ITO S.28 and S.10</b><br />
<br />
Head: Judge Ernst Moe<br />
Sec: Beate Sundstrøm<br />
Disciplinary Committee | Disiplinærnemnden Kristian Augustsgt. 9 0164 OSLO Tlf. 22 03 50 50 | Tlf: 22 03 51 08 | Fax 22 11 53 25 <br />
<br />
Dear Judge Moe,<br />
<br />
Thanks for your email sent Friday, June 22, 2012 2:49 PM.<br />
<br />
As I wrote to the Disciplinary Committee: My apologies. Last time I contacted the Norwegian Bar Association, they kindly informed me whether the individual was a Bar Association member or not. I thought this was a service they provide; but clearly I am mistaken. I imagine the majority of complaints filed are member of the Bar Association; and the Disciplinary Committee and Disciplinary Board are simply stalling for time to obstruct the procedure of addressing my complaints. Its very common masculine insecurity (reason and logic) legal behaviour when a lawyer does not want to address the facts in any individuals complaint. Nevertheless I shall do the search and confirm which are members of the Bar Association.<br />
<br />
<b>Re: Legal Interest & Disciplinary Boards Complaints Policy: </b><br />
<br />
You have not answered my request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) in terms of the Bar Association's Legal Interest and Complaints policies: <br />
<br />
I repeat:<br />
<br />
Request for Information: <br />
<br />
<b>[2] The Disciplinary Board’s ‘Legal Interest’ Decision Making Justifications: </b><br />
<br />
[A] Does the Disciplinary Board endorse the European Court of Human Rights (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom) principle that every individual who files a legal application to a Norwegian Court has a right to a timeous and precise written response informing them whether their application has been accepted, or if denied, reasons for such denial, or to inform the individual of additional information required before the complaint can be accepted? <br />
<br />
[B] If so, if or when any Judge refuses to provide any applicant in any court proceeding that any Norwegian Lawyer is a participant in, with such prompt written response, it is the duty of honourable and ethical Lawyers to uphold the respect for impartial court due process proceedings to object to, and expose such discrimatory corrupt practices being practiced by a Norwegian Magistrate or Judge? <br />
<br />
[C] In consideration for [A] and [B], could the Disciplinary Board be detailed specific about how and why it alleges that my complaints do not meet the Disciplinary Boards ‘legal interest requirement’?<br />
<br />
[D] Is the Disciplinary Board’s ‘Legal Interest’ Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of the Human-Farming-EcoSuicide-Kaffir-Legal-Matrix?: Whether the Disciplinary Board’s decision-making to allege that my complaint did not meet the Disciplinary Board’s ‘legal interest requirement’ had anything to do with silencing, suppressing or obstructing my legal applications to the court in this matter expoing the Human Farming Kaffir Legal Matrix: the Iron Mountain ‘War is a Racket Military Industrial Complex’s centralisation of power and tyranny , founded on Kaffir Law/Legislation which provides citizens with the Inalienable Eco-Suicide ‘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, a Marxist/Capitalist Traitor Hunting licence, etc, etc. <br />
<br />
[D] Is the Disciplinary Board’s ‘Legal Interest’ Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of Norway’s endorsement of the Legal Establishment’s use of ‘Whores of the Court’ Psychiatrists for the purposes of White Supremacy cultural supremacy and social control; ignoring the reality their ‘Whores of the Court’ Bullshit the public and the court with “psychobabble with scientific foundations equal to horoscope charts… the science behind it all is nonexistent”?<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>[3] The Disciplinary Board’s Environmental Principles Decision-Making </b><br />
<br />
[1] Please provide the Disciplinary Board’s Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for demanding complainants waste paper, ink and non-renewable transporation resources by printing, signing and mailing complaints to the Disciplinary Board’s; and refusing digitally signed complaints submitted by email, which are much more beneficial to the environment, and are exact environmentally digital copies of print versions? <br />
<br />
[2] Please provide Disciplinary Board’s Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for printed complaints; when even third world goverments and Bar Associations environmental policies allow courts and organisations to accept email complaints? <br />
<br />
[..] <br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion: </b><br />
<br />
If an individual files a legal application to a Norwegian Court; does the Disciplinary Board’s support the due process principles; that <br />
<br />
1. Such an individual has a right to a prompt and clear written response from the Court informing the applicant their legal application has been accepted or if not, whether further information is required or what is required from the individual for such legal application to be accepted;<br />
<br />
2. When any legal applicant is denied such due process written response by the court; it is the honourable duty of all legal parties involved in the matter to uphold the respect for due process and the law, by demanding the Judge provide the applicant with a clear and written response to their application. <br />
<br />
We live on a finite resource planet and not even Bar Associations have the right to believe that resources are infinite and to demand ‘complaints’ procedures that require complainants to waste scarce resources, when alternative procedures exist that are more environmentally resource friendly.<br />
<br />
Please see <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120620_jmoe-dbrd?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a> sent to the Disciplinary Board by email on 20. juni 2012 14:38<br />
<br />
<br />
Respectfully Submitted<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity<br />
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/">http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/</a><br />
<br />
<br />
________________________________________<br />
From: Disiplinærnemnden for advokater<br />
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 2:49 PM<br />
To: 'Lara'<br />
<b>Subject: RE: Disciplinary Board Head: Judge Ernst Moe: Req for Env. & Health Info ITO S.28 and S.10</b><br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone,<br />
<br />
With reference to your e-mail of 20th of June, and your previous 170 complaints sent the Disciplinary Board last week. <br />
<br />
A list of the Norwegian Bar Association’s members is available at; <a href="http://www.advokatforeningen.no/Sok/Sok-i-medlemslisten">http://www.advokatforeningen.no/Sok/Sok-i-medlemslisten</a> .<br />
<br />
Regarding your question concerning legal interest, we refer to the Regulations for Advocates (Advokatforskriften) § 5-3 and to our e-mail of June 19th where all the relevant information has been provided. If you have further questions regarding our complaint system, you can find more information at <a href="http://www.advokatenhjelperdeg.no/artikler/complaint-against-an-attorny/">http://www.advokatenhjelperdeg.no/artikler/complaint-against-an-attorny/</a> .<br />
<br />
As previously mentioned, your potential complaints must be sent by ordinary mail due to the fact that the Disciplinary Board does not accept any complaints sent by e-mail.<br />
<br />
Regards The Disciplinary Board<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120620_jmoe-dbrd?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a> :: <a href="http://www.advokatforeningen.no/Etiske-regler/">Norsk Bar Assoc: Ethics</a>]</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG35_mG6caC4KBxsQJyTNhzHyA6-FQtZYnz5IBLl54ORu_a-boz0PBm8YdS-VFQ4KFCJO7VNfP5YqY4Wihq9GEzTHHgCMI0I_4LLD7wdGKQFqubGiB-gXfD5pJ4p6vMDhnlhn-1EMJtAY/s1600/TolerantNorwayPolPsychBreivik_ApartheidMandelaTreason_897x596.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWMyLbwkIUbk76EGOkStxXbt3U23JYE9udiDNPVgJhiFUsKD5W1nEsV6m48kuuqlr2JXWqlLk-QJLqc3tMJKd8_gbfiWLODJK-lckkTSqwxEgyVg254soN3Q-uLJydzBqjHQfNwpjbdoE/s1600/TolerantNorwayPolPsychBreivik_ApartheidMandelaTreason_600x399.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 399px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 600px;" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-34157238434758020782012-06-21T15:17:00.000-07:002012-07-11T02:36:01.644-07:00170 Bar Association Complaints filed against Norway v. Breivik Attorneys: Participation in StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial to Deny Defendent & Victims a Treason Trial<div align="justify"><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">170 Bar Association Complaints filed against Norway v. Breivik Attorneys (Defendant: 4; Victims Families: 166)</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Norsk Advokat Foreningen/Bar Association: Complaints: Violation of: CCBE Code of Ethics: Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial, to (1) deny Defendant his Political Necessity Treason Trial; and (2) support Corruption of the Court [<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/06/norsk-advokat-foreningen-complaints-my.html">here</a>]. Bar Association Response & response to the Bar Association correspondence is below.</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 21 June 2012</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhV-9CJOFtf3uRZzCGZs4yCIkT_8aCDPRII3RYi6avsVpe0M5LIWwQVdQKaapVpJCj8Iw0jkNiqMHoZhMDNNSTky5529ShQ5KWoLD7kAGlAXiRBZ_whOZ1I1aMtBeAPwOIouMqU_mlxDvM/s1600/NorskAdvFor-BarAsso_170Complaints_355x409.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 409px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 355px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 95%;">From: Disiplinærnemnden for advokater: The Disciplinary Board has received your complaints concerning numerous lawyers participating in the case against Anders Behring Breivik.....<br />
<br />
From: Advokatforeningen: The Norwegian Bar Association’s Disciplinary Committee has received your complaints concerning numerous lawyers participating in the case against Anders Behring Breivik...... <br />
<br />
From: Habeus 4 Mentem: Right to Legal Sanity: <br />
<br />
[1] Please provide The Bar Association Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for demanding complainants waste paper, ink and non-renewable transporation resources by printing, signing and mailing complaints to the Bar Association; and refusing digitally signed complaints submitted by email, which are much more beneficial to the environment, and are exact environmentally digital copies of print versions? <br />
<br />
[A] Does the Bar Association endorse the European Court of Human Rights (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom) principle that every individual who files a legal application to a Norwegian Court has a right to a timeous and precise written response informing them whether their application has been accepted, or if denied, reasons for such denial, or to inform the individual of additional information required before the complaint can be accepted? </span></blockquote><br />
<a name='more'></a>
<br />
<br />
<div align="center"><a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJZPj_1SWXWvyLlmRAgy0CECpSqhbfzctqlXhs97tHB4maoYbOMEvkQ9wg8GGeJtrggM9CDTSYcuf0w6P8PMn3xY-0nr91BulyjINw0y0Hspz-SGwc5NgHa1VtgcBwZpc3PRRkdJ8Mrs/s1600/NorwayVBreivik_FleurdeLis_MargaretHagen_556x119.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div><br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Request to Norsk Advokaat Foreningen: Disciplinary Complaints: for Environment and Health Information ITO S.10 and S28</span></span></strong> </blockquote></div><br />
<br />
<blockquote>From: Lara Johnstone<br />
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:34 PM<br />
To: 'Inger-Johanna Hammer'; 'Baard Amundsen'<br />
Cc: 'Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints'<br />
<b>Subject: Den Norske Advokatforening: Berit Reiss-Andersen: Req for Env. & Health Info ITO S.28 and S.10</b><br />
<br />
Chairperson: Berit Reiss-Andersen<br />
Sec./Exec. Officer: Inger-Johanna Hammer<br />
Comm: Baard Amundsen<br />
The Norwegian Bar Association | Den Norske Advokatforening<br />
Juristenes Hus Kristian Augusts gate 9, 0164 Oslo<br />
Tel: 22 03 50 50 | Fax: 22 11 53 25<br />
<br />
CC: Disciplinary Complaints<br />
The Norwegian Bar Association | Den Norske Advokatforening<br />
Juristenes Hus Kristian Augusts gate 9, 0164 Oslo<br />
Tel: 22 03 50 50 | Fax: 22 11 53 25<br />
<br />
Dear Ms. Reiss-Andersen,<br />
<br />
<b>Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Complaints filed against Attorneys for Defendant (4) and Victims Families (166) in Norway v. Breivik matter: Violation of: 2.1 (Independence), 2.2 (Honesty), 2.4 (Multiculti Legal Respect) & 4,1 (Rule of Law Conduct) of CCBE Code of Ethics (Norwegian translation) : Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial, to (1) deny Defendant his Political Necessity Treason Trial; and (2) support Corruption of the Court to deny submittal to the Court of Controversial Evidence related to: [1] Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; [2] Norway’s endorsement of Political Psychiatry & Psychiatric Fraud; [3] Masculine Insecurity Human Farming for Profit Kaffir Legal Matrix; [4] Norwegian Goverments Endorsement for ANC’s Terrorism & Breeding War; [5] Norwegian Commitment to Rainbow Race Multiculturism is a Fraud</b><br />
<br />
Thank you for the email from the Norwegian Bar Association’s Disciplinary Committee, dated Tue 6/19/2012 10:16 AM; in response to the 170 complaints I filed against Attorney’s for Defendant (4) and Victims Families (166) in Norway v. Breivik matter. In response, I request the following information:<br />
<br />
<b>Request for Information: </b><br />
<br />
[1] List of Attorney’s I filed complaint against who are not members of the Bar Association, whose complaints cannot be handled by the Disciplinary Committee and require referral to the Disciplinary Board.<br />
<br />
<b>[2] The Bar Association ‘Legal Interest’ Decision Making Justifications:</b> <br />
<br />
[A] Does the Bar Association endorse the European Court of Human Rights (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom) principle that every individual who files a legal application to a Norwegian Court has a right to a timeous and precise written response informing them whether their application has been accepted, or if denied, reasons for such denial, or to inform the individual of additional information required before the complaint can be accepted? <br />
<br />
[B] If so, if or when any Judge refuses to provide any applicant in any court proceeding that any Norwegian Lawyer is a participant in, with such prompt written response, it is the duty of honourable and ethical Lawyers to uphold the respect for impartial court due process proceedings to object to, and expose such discrimatory corrupt practices being practiced by a Norwegian Magistrate or Judge? <br />
<br />
[C] In consideration for [A] and [B], could the Bar Association be detailed specific about how and why it alleges that my complaints do not meet the Bar Association’s ‘legal interest requirement’?<br />
<br />
[D] Is the Bar Association’s ‘Legal Interest’ Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of the Human-Farming-EcoSuicide-Kaffir-Legal-Matrix?: Whether the Bar Association’s decision-making to allege that my complaint did not meet the ‘Bar Association’s ‘legal interest requirement’ had anything to do with silencing, suppressing or obstructing my legal applications to the court in this matter exposing the Human Farming Kaffir Legal Matrix: the Iron Mountain ‘War is a Racket Military Industrial Complex’s centralisation of power and tyranny , founded on Kaffir Law/Legislation which provides citizens with the Inalienable Eco-Suicide ‘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, a Marxist/Capitalist Traitor Hunting licence, etc, etc. <br />
<br />
[D] Is the Bar Association’s ‘Legal Interest’ Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of Norway’s endorsement of the Legal Establishment’s use of Whores of the Court Psychiatrists for the purposes of White Supremacy cultural supremacy and social control; ignoring the reality their ‘Whores of the Court’ Bullshit the public and the court with “psychobabble with scientific foundations equal to horoscope charts… the science behind it all is nonexistent”?<br />
<br />
<b>[3] The Bar Association Environmental Principles Decision-Making </b><br />
<br />
[1] Please provide The Bar Association Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for demanding complainants waste paper, ink and non-renewable transporation resources by printing, signing and mailing complaints to the Bar Association; and refusing digitally signed complaints submitted by email, which are much more beneficial to the environment, and are exact environmentally digital copies of print versions? <br />
<br />
[2] Please provide The Bar Association Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for printed complaints; when even third world goverments and Bar Associations environmental policies allow courts and organisations to accept email complaints?<br />
<br />
<b>ECHR: Rule of law requires adequately Precise and Accessible Legislation:</b><br />
In Lithgow & others v United Kingdom , the European Court of Human Rights held that the rule of law requires provisions of legislation to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law:<br />
<br />
“As regards the phrase "subject to the conditions provided for by law”, it requires in the first place the existence of and compliance with adequately accessible and sufficiently precise domestic legal provisions (see, amongst other authorities, the alone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 31-33, paras. 66-68).”<br />
<br />
[..] <br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion: </b><br />
<br />
If an individual files a legal application to a Norwegian Court; does the Bar Association support the due process principles; that <br />
<br />
1. such an individual has a right to a prompt and clear written response from the Court informing the applicant their legal application has been accepted or if not, whether further information is required or what is required from the individual for such legal application to be accepted<br />
<br />
2. When any legal applicant is denied such due process written response by the court; it is the honourable duty of all legal parties involved in the matter to uphold the respect for due process and the law, by demanding the Judge provide the applicant with a clear and written response to their application. <br />
<br />
We live on a finite resource planet and not even Bar Associations have the right to believe that resources are infinite and to demand ‘complaints’ procedures that require complainants to waste scarce resources, when alternative procedures exist that are more environmentally resource friendly.<br />
<br />
Full complaint in attached <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120620_nadvfor-dc?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>.<br />
<br />
Respectfully Submitted<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity<br />
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/">http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/</a><br />
<br />
________________________________________<br />
From: Advokatforeningen [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgosSAkp8YYaSnTn-9pL0KUZiy5uD9XgHw1p8Brm-ua9wuAkIuMgYr3yhmxrqM6JgSfPULOffR8Z7g6NyoSsjweVISxxo426VGAdYTqiuKRp9_7WA2r8WWFZx_jfTzDrL78a23NnoEDWUU/s1600/10-16_AdvokaatForeningen_DisciplinaryCommittee.png">SS</a>]<br />
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:16 AM<br />
To: Lara<br />
<b>Subject: RE: Adv.For: Klage: </b><br />
<br />
Dear Ms Lara Johnstone,<br />
<br />
The Norwegian Bar Association’s Disciplinary Committee has received your complaints concerning numerous lawyers participating in the case against Anders Behring Breivik. Complaints concerning a lawyer’s possible breach of the Code of conduct for lawyers can be brought before the Disciplinary Committee as long as the lawyer is a member of the Norwegian Bar Association. If the lawyer is not a member, the complaint must be addressed to the Disciplinary Board. <br />
<br />
The Disciplinary Committee’s handling of complaints is regulated by The Norwegian Bar Association’s bylaws § 13-1, cf. the Disciplinary Committee’s processing regulations. <br />
<br />
We would like to point out that anyone whose complaint is based on a <i>legal interest</i> is entitled to file a complaint. In practice this means that the attorney’s client has a right to complain. Complaints regarding the other party’s attorney may also be filed. It is thus primarily the parties involved in a case that can file a complaint against a lawyer, as the complainant must have a direct connection to the circumstances that the complaint is built on. If the complainant has no such legal interest, the complaint will be rejected. A complaint may also be rejected if it is obviously baseless.<br />
<br />
Based on the information received in your complaints, it seems like these are not in compliance with the legal interest- requirement. <br />
<br />
Should you nevertheless uphold your complaints, please be aware that all complaints must be submitted in writing and signed, and send us <u>as two originals by ordinary mail</u>. We would like to emphasize the importance of sending your complaints by ordinary mail due to the fact that the Norwegian Bar Association does not accept any complaints sent by e-mail. <br />
<br />
The following items should be included in the complaint:<br />
<br />
1. Name and address of the attorney who is the subject of the complaint.<br />
<br />
2. Indicate the date you became aware of the matter(s) that is/are the subject of the complaint.<br />
<br />
3. Write why you believe the attorney has violated the rules of proper conduct and/or why you believe the demanded fee is too high. Provide a brief presentation of the factual circumstances. It is important, to the extent you can, that you provide dates for all events.<br />
<br />
4. Enclose copies of letters and other documents that you believe are relevant to the complaint.<br />
<br />
5. Complete <a href="http://www.advokatenhjelperdeg.no/PageFiles/269/decleration%20of%20consent.PDF" target="_blank">an attorney complaint form</a> with declaration of consent to the processing and handling of personal data.<br />
<br />
The Norwegian Bar Association cannot process the complaint without a completed and signed attorney complaint form. Documents received without the complaint form attached will be returned to the complainant.<br />
<br />
Please send two copies of the signed written complaint enclosed with any documentation you find relevant, in duplicate, and a filled-out and signed consent form in original to:<br />
<br />
Advokatforeningen<br />
Kristian Augustsgt. 9<br />
NO-0164 Oslo<br />
<br />
Label the envelope “Disciplinary Complaint”.<br />
<br />
Kind regards<br />
The Norwegian Bar Association<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120620_nadvfor-dc?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a> :: <a href="http://www.advokatforeningen.no/Etiske-regler/">Norsk Bar Assoc: Ethics</a>]</span></strong></blockquote><br />
<div align="center"><a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJZPj_1SWXWvyLlmRAgy0CECpSqhbfzctqlXhs97tHB4maoYbOMEvkQ9wg8GGeJtrggM9CDTSYcuf0w6P8PMn3xY-0nr91BulyjINw0y0Hspz-SGwc5NgHa1VtgcBwZpc3PRRkdJ8Mrs/s1600/NorwayVBreivik_FleurdeLis_MargaretHagen_556x119.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div><br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Request to Judge Ernst Moe's: Disciplinary Board: for Environment and Health Information ITO S.10 and S28</span></span></strong> </blockquote></div><br />
<blockquote>From: Lara Johnstone<br />
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:38 PM<br />
To: 'Disiplinærnemnden for advokater'; 'Judge Ernst Moe'<br />
<b>Subject: Disciplinary Board Head: Judge Ernst Moe: Req for Env. & Health Info ITO S.28 and S.10</b><br />
<br />
Head: Judge Ernst Moe<br />
Sec: Beate Sundstrøm<br />
Disciplinary Committee | Disiplinærnemnden<br />
Kristian Augustsgt. 9 0164 OSLO<br />
Tlf. 22 03 50 50 | Tlf: 22 03 51 08 | Fax 22 11 53 25<br />
<br />
Dear Judge Moe,<br />
<br />
<b>Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Complaints filed with Disciplinary Board against Attorneys for Victims Families in Norway v. Breivik matter: Violation of: 2.1 (Independence), 2.2 (Honesty), 2.4 (Multiculti Legal Respect) & 4,1 (Rule of Law Conduct) of CCBE Code of Ethics (Norwegian translation) : Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial, to (1) deny Defendant his Political Necessity Treason Trial; and (2) support Corruption of the Court to deny submittal to the Court of Controversial Evidence related to: [1] Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; [2] Norway’s endorsement of Political Psychiatry & Psychiatric Fraud; [3] Masculine Insecurity Human Farming for Profit Kaffir Legal Matrix; [4] Norwegian Goverments Endorsement for ANC’s Terrorism & Breeding War; [5] Norwegian Commitment to Rainbow Race Multiculturism is a Fraud</b><br />
<br />
Thank you for your email from the Disciplinary Board, dated Tue 6/19/2012 10:26 AM; in response to the 170 complaints I filed against Attorney’s for Defendant (4) and Victims Families (166) in Norway v. Breivik matter. I am awaiting response from the Disciplinary Committee to inform me which Attorney’s are not members of the Bar Association, whose complaints I am required to file with the Disciplinary Board. In the meantime, in response to the issues raised in your Tue 6/19/2012 10:26 AM email, I request the following information:<br />
<br />
Request for Information: <br />
<br />
<b>[2] The Disciplinary Board’s ‘Legal Interest’ Decision Making Justifications: </b><br />
<br />
[A] Does the Disciplinary Board endorse the European Court of Human Rights (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom ) principle that every individual who files a legal application to a Norwegian Court has a right to a timeous and precise written response informing them whether their application has been accepted, or if denied, reasons for such denial, or to inform the individual of additional information required before the complaint can be accepted? <br />
<br />
[B] If so, if or when any Judge refuses to provide any applicant in any court proceeding that any Norwegian Lawyer is a participant in, with such prompt written response, it is the duty of honourable and ethical Lawyers to uphold the respect for impartial court due process proceedings to object to, and expose such discrimatory corrupt practices being practiced by a Norwegian Magistrate or Judge? <br />
<br />
[C] In consideration for [A] and [B], could the Disciplinary Board be detailed specific about how and why it alleges that my complaints do not meet the Disciplinary Boards ‘legal interest requirement’?<br />
<br />
[D] Is the Disciplinary Board’s ‘Legal Interest’ Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of the Human-Farming-EcoSuicide-Kaffir-Legal-Matrix?: Whether the Disciplinary Board’s decision-making to allege that my complaint did not meet the Disciplinary Board’s ‘legal interest requirement’ had anything to do with silencing, suppressing or obstructing my legal applications to the court in this matter expoing the Human Farming Kaffir Legal Matrix: the Iron Mountain ‘War is a Racket Military Industrial Complex’s centralisation of power and tyranny , founded on Kaffir Law/Legislation which provides citizens with the Inalienable Eco-Suicide ‘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, a Marxist/Capitalist Traitor Hunting licence, etc, etc. <br />
<br />
[D] Is the Disciplinary Board’s ‘Legal Interest’ Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of Norway’s endorsement of the Legal Establishment’s use of ‘Whores of the Court’ Psychiatrists for the purposes of White Supremacy cultural supremacy and social control; ignoring the reality their ‘Whores of the Court’ Bullshit the public and the court with “psychobabble with scientific foundations equal to horoscope charts… the science behind it all is nonexistent”?<br />
<br />
<b>[3] The Disciplinary Board’s Environmental Principles Decision-Making </b><br />
<br />
[1] Please provide the Disciplinary Board’s Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for demanding complainants waste paper, ink and non-renewable transporation resources by printing, signing and mailing complaints to the Disciplinary Board’s; and refusing digitally signed complaints submitted by email, which are much more beneficial to the environment, and are exact environmentally digital copies of print versions? <br />
<br />
[2] Please provide Disciplinary Board’s Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for printed complaints; when even third world goverments and Bar Associations environmental policies allow courts and organisations to accept email complaints? <br />
<br />
[..] <br />
<br />
Conclusion: <br />
<br />
If an individual files a legal application to a Norwegian Court; does the Disciplinary Board’s support the due process principles; that <br />
<br />
1. such an individual has a right to a prompt and clear written response from the Court informing the applicant their legal application has been accepted or if not, whether further information is required or what is required from the individual for such legal application to be accepted;<br />
<br />
2. When any legal applicant is denied such due process written response by the court; it is the honourable duty of all legal parties involved in the matter to uphold the respect for due process and the law, by demanding the Judge provide the applicant with a clear and written response to their application. <br />
<br />
We live on a finite resource planet and not even Bar Associations have the right to believe that resources are infinite and to demand ‘complaints’ procedures that require complainants to waste scarce resources, when alternative procedures exist that are more environmentally resource friendly.<br />
<br />
Please see <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120620_jmoe-dbrd?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a> for full detailed request including footnotes.<br />
<br />
Respectfully Submitted<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity<br />
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/">http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/</a><br />
<br />
________________________________________<br />
From: Disiplinærnemnden for advokater [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpKSWX5KaYyif1hpKnHlxSnLrJt-oVTj77J4i0hDikBuTjjAURSNnIj5luQLQG2KAZNvpGCLNloH3w2GerJL0kAGgnrXEDW4FpMkQ3tvob3xplnDr4nOcRl4v0B3pMbW3oF67uSmMgnao/s1600/10-26_JudgeMoe_DisciplinaryBoard_1011x604.png">SS</a>]<br />
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:26 AM<br />
To: Lara<br />
Subject: RE: <br />
<br />
Dear Ms Lara Johnstone,<br />
<br />
The Disciplinary Board has received your complaints concerning numerous lawyers participating in the case against Anders Behring Breivik.<br />
<br />
The Board’s handling of complaints is regulated by chapter five of the Regulations for Advocates (Regulations) (<i>Advokatforskriften</i>). Complaints may in some cases be decided by the chair of the Board alone, cf. section 5-5 of the Regulations.<br />
<br />
We would like to point out that anyone whose complaint is based on <i>a legal interest</i> is entitled to file a complaint. In practice this means that the attorney’s client has a right to complain. Complaints regarding the other party’s attorney may also be filed. It is thus primarily the parties involved in a case that can file a complaint against a lawyer, as the complainant must have a direct connection to the circumstances that the complaint is built on. If the complainant has no such legal interest, the complaint will be rejected. A complaint may also be rejected if it is obviously baseless.<br />
<br />
Based on the information received in your complaints, it seems like these are not in compliance with the legal interest- requirement. <br />
<br />
Should you nevertheless uphold your complaints, please be aware that all complaints must be submitted in writing and signed, and send us <u>as two originals by ordinary mail</u>. We would like to emphasize the importance of sending your complaints by ordinary mail due to the fact that the Disciplinary Board does not accept any complaints sent by e-mail. <br />
<br />
All complaints must be submitted in writing and signed. <br />
<br />
1. Indicate the date you became aware of the matter(s) that is/are the subject of the complaint.<br />
<br />
2. Explain why you believe the attorney has violated the rules of proper conduct and/or why you believe the demanded fee is too high. Provide a brief presentation of the factual circumstances. It is very important, to the extent you can, that you provide dates for all events that are subject to your complaint.<br />
<br />
3. Enclose copies of letters and other documents that you believe are relevant to the complaint. <br />
<br />
4. <b>The documents submitted should always be sorted and copied in duplicate</b>. Send your complaint as an original by regular post and a filled-out and signed form of consent to:<br />
<br />
Disiplinærnemnden<br />
Kristian Augustsgt. 9<br />
NO – 0164 Oslo<br />
<br />
Label the envelope; “Disciplinary Complaint”.<br />
<br />
The Disciplinary Board and the Secretariat are subject to a duty of confidentiality.<br />
<br />
Kind regards,<br />
The Disciplinary Board<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120620_jmoe-dbrd?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a> :: <a href="http://www.advokatforeningen.no/Etiske-regler/">Norsk Bar Assoc: Ethics</a>]</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<div align="center"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG35_mG6caC4KBxsQJyTNhzHyA6-FQtZYnz5IBLl54ORu_a-boz0PBm8YdS-VFQ4KFCJO7VNfP5YqY4Wihq9GEzTHHgCMI0I_4LLD7wdGKQFqubGiB-gXfD5pJ4p6vMDhnlhn-1EMJtAY/s1600/TolerantNorwayPolPsychBreivik_ApartheidMandelaTreason_897x596.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWMyLbwkIUbk76EGOkStxXbt3U23JYE9udiDNPVgJhiFUsKD5W1nEsV6m48kuuqlr2JXWqlLk-QJLqc3tMJKd8_gbfiWLODJK-lckkTSqwxEgyVg254soN3Q-uLJydzBqjHQfNwpjbdoE/s1600/TolerantNorwayPolPsychBreivik_ApartheidMandelaTreason_600x399.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 399px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 600px;" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-50263123403786426682012-06-19T15:11:00.000-07:002012-07-10T15:39:58.858-07:00Environment Appeals Brd: Appeal: Addresseavisen | Aftenposten | Bergense Tidende | Dagbladet | NRK | TV2 | VG: RE: Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection & Norway Pharma-Psychiatry<div align="justify"><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Environment Appeals Brd: Appeal: RE: Addresseavisen | Aftenposten | Bergense Tidende | Dagbladet | NRK | TV2 | VG</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law); RE: Censorship in Norway’s Media: (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 18 June 2012</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<a href="http://fleur-de-lis.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqlCXbr3thbtBh3C2mMV02gusqTqUivhyFq29oyj0tCi-2CbUwIqEwxg3Pn0NLYZZdPjaLoAXkEV7HvoYhyU0SL9gt9AIjnVmLd3czWNw46LrKEINn_dillmn28YyObFYdUQLcdeqx3y8/s1600/Aftenposten-Adresseavisen-tv2-vg-nrk-bergenstidende_274x614.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 614px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 274px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 95%;">Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law); RE: Censorship in Norway’s Media: (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny<br />
<br />
Request for Information Questions: <br />
<br />
[1] Editors decision-making justification for censorship of the Norway v. Breivik Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection documentation provided to their publication in 13 May 2012 email: <b><a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/1278-norwegian-editors-journalists.html">Breivik Acquittal Justified by Media's Massive Censorship of Oslo Crt Proceedings</a></b>? <br />
<br />
[2] (a) The total number of articles published by their publication either in print or online which refer to Breivik’s alleged ‘insanity’; and (b) the number of these articles which - for fairness, impartiality and scientific objectivity - include a ‘Critical Psychiatry’ perspective, such as: ‘The Myth of Mental Illness’, the Marketing of Madness, the use of Psychiatry as social control, and Psychiatrists Legal Testimony being equivalent to that of ‘Whores of the Court’: “psychobabble with scientific foundations equal to horoscope charts… the science behind it all is nonexistent”. <br />
<br />
[3] The total amount of advertising revenue received by your publication from Pharmaceutical Corporations per year, over the past five years. <br />
<br />
<b>Environment-Population:</b> Dr. Michael Maher Ph.D thesis documents how the media censors the Environment Population Connection: <b>How & Why Journalists Avoid the Environment-Population Connection</b> (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>)<br />
<br />
<b>Ecological Source of Political & Economic Problems:</b> “The economic and political problems with which we concern ourselves are merely manifestations of our ecological predicament -- they are symptoms, not the disease.” – Chris Clugston: <a href="http://in-gods-name.blogspot.com/2011/12/peak-nnr-scarcity-humanitys-last.html">Scarcity: Humanity's Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Non-Renewable Natural Resources and its implications and consequences for humanity</a> (<a href="http://www.nnrscarcity.com/">NNR Scarcity</a>) | <b>US Naval Services Long-Term Study:</b> <a href="http://in-gods-name.blogspot.com/2012/05/us-naval-services-long-term-study.html">Global Tipping Points on Food, Water, Energy, Pollution, Population, & Natural Resources & Population Explosion: The Most Powerful Force on Earth</a> | <b>1996: US Army War College: Parameters:</b> <a href="http://in-gods-name.blogspot.com/2012/05/1996-us-army-war-college-parameters.html">The Culture of Future Conflict: Overpopulation & Resource Scarcity will be the Direct Cause of Confrontation, Conflict, and War</a>.</span></blockquote><br /><a name='more'></a>
<br />
<div align="center"><a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJZPj_1SWXWvyLlmRAgy0CECpSqhbfzctqlXhs97tHB4maoYbOMEvkQ9wg8GGeJtrggM9CDTSYcuf0w6P8PMn3xY-0nr91BulyjINw0y0Hspz-SGwc5NgHa1VtgcBwZpc3PRRkdJ8Mrs/s1600/NorwayVBreivik_FleurdeLis_MargaretHagen_556x119.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div><br />
<blockquote>From: Habeus Mentem <br />
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 11:41 PM<br />
To: 'Env. Appeals Brd'<br />
Cc: 'Arne Blix'; 'Ed: Hilde Haugsjerd'; 'Trine Eilertsen'; 'John Arne Markussen'; 'Hans Tore Bjerkaas'; 'Alf Hildrum'; 'Torry Pedersen'<br />
<b>Subject: Env. Appeals Brd: Appeal: RE: Addresseavisen | Aftenposten | BTidende | Dagbladet | NRK | TV2 | VG</b><br />
<br />
<b>Environmental Appeals Board: </b><br />
Appeals of environmental information, <br />
c / o Secretariat, Climate and Pollution, <br />
PO Box 8100 Dep, 0032 OSLO, <br />
E-mail: post@miljoklagenemnda.no<br />
<br />
<b>Respondents: </b><br />
Adresseavisen: Editor: Arne Blix<br />
Aftenposten: Editor: Hilde Haugsgjerd<br />
Bergens Tidende: Editor: Trine Eilertsen<br />
Dagbladet: Editor: John Arne Markussen<br />
NRK: Editor: Hans Tore Bjerkaas<br />
TV2: Editor: Alf Hildrum<br />
VG: Editor: Torry Pedersen<br />
<br />
<br />
Dear Sirs,<br />
<br />
<b>Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Censorship in Norway’s Media: (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny </b><br />
<br />
On 25 May 2012, correspondence was submitted to each of the respondents requesting information related to their decision-making to censor information related to the (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny. Each respondent was additionally provided a copy of the 22 April 2012 Earth Day: “If It Bleads, It Leads” Media’s Population-Terrorism Connection Report (42pgs)<br />
<br />
Respondents were requested to provide such information by 17:00 hrs on 11 June 2012. As of 17:00 hrs on 18 June 2012, all respondents have declined to respond or to provide the information requested. <br />
<br />
I am unaware what the legal justifications for the respondents refusal to provide the information. <br />
<br />
As detailed in the requests to the respondents, the information is requested as a matter of public interest for research and transparency problem solving purposes.<br />
<br />
Respectfully Submitted,<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity<br />
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/">http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/ </a><br />
<br />
Encl: <br />
[A] <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_adresseavisen?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">Addresseavisen: Req for Access to Environment and Health Information ITO S.28 & S.10</a><br />
[B] <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_aftenposten?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">Aftenposten: Req for Access to Environment and Health Information ITO S.28 & S.10</a><br />
[C] <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_bergenstidende?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">BergensTidende: Req for Access to Environment and Health Information ITO S.28 & S.10</a><br />
[D] <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_dagbladet?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">Dagbladet: Req for Access to Environment and Health Information ITO S.28 & S.10</a><br />
[E] <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_nrk?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">NRK: Req for Access to Environment and Health Information ITO S.28 & S.10</a><br />
[F] <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_tv2?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">TV2: Req for Access to Environment and Health Information ITO S.28 & S.10</a><br />
[G] <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_vg?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">VG: Req for Access to Environment and Health Information ITO S.28 & S.10</a><br />
[H] <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120422_bleads-leads?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">22 April: Earth Day: Media’s Population-Terrorism Connection Report (42.pg)</a>.<br />
<br />
</blockquote><div align="center"><object style="height: 600px; width: 600px;"><param name="movie" value="http://static.issuu.com/webembed/viewers/style1/v2/IssuuReader.swf?mode=mini&viewMode=singlePage&shareMenuEnabled=false&backgroundColor=%23222222&documentId=120619111730-d4fccf973f464d2c8326a339db08369c" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/><param name="menu" value="false"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"/><embed src="http://static.issuu.com/webembed/viewers/style1/v2/IssuuReader.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" menu="false" wmode="transparent" style="width:600px;height:600px" flashvars="mode=mini&viewMode=singlePage&shareMenuEnabled=false&backgroundColor=%23222222&documentId=120619111730-d4fccf973f464d2c8326a339db08369c" /></object></div><br />
<blockquote><strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/180612_env-app-brd?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a> :: <a href="http://www.miljoklagenemnda.no/">Miljoklagenemnda</a>]</span></strong></blockquote></div><br />
<div align="center"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG35_mG6caC4KBxsQJyTNhzHyA6-FQtZYnz5IBLl54ORu_a-boz0PBm8YdS-VFQ4KFCJO7VNfP5YqY4Wihq9GEzTHHgCMI0I_4LLD7wdGKQFqubGiB-gXfD5pJ4p6vMDhnlhn-1EMJtAY/s1600/TolerantNorwayPolPsychBreivik_ApartheidMandelaTreason_897x596.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWMyLbwkIUbk76EGOkStxXbt3U23JYE9udiDNPVgJhiFUsKD5W1nEsV6m48kuuqlr2JXWqlLk-QJLqc3tMJKd8_gbfiWLODJK-lckkTSqwxEgyVg254soN3Q-uLJydzBqjHQfNwpjbdoE/s1600/TolerantNorwayPolPsychBreivik_ApartheidMandelaTreason_600x399.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 399px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 600px;" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-46072224133966232632012-06-18T18:18:00.000-07:002012-07-01T06:23:28.376-07:00Advokat Disciplinary Board Complaints: Anne-Gry Rønning-Aaby | Borghild Fjeld Gylvik | Arne Seland | Ole Klanderud<div align="justify">
<br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<blockquote>
<strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Norsk Advokaten: Disciplinary Board: Anne-Gry Rønning-Aaby | Borghild Fjeld Gylvik | Arne Seland | Ole Klanderud </span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Complaint: Violation of: CCBE Code of Ethics: Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial, to (1) deny Defendant his Political Necessity Treason Trial; and (2) support Corruption of the Court to deny submittal to the Court of Controversial Evidence related to: [1] Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; [2] Norway’s endorsement of Political Psychiatry & Psychiatric Fraud; [3] Masculine Insecurity Human Farming for Profit Kaffir Legal Matrix; [4] Norwegian Goverments Endorsement for ANC’s Terrorism & Breeding War; [5] Norwegian Commitment to Rainbow Race Multiculturism is a Fraud </span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 18 June 2012</span></strong></blockquote>
</div>
<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/search/label/*%20Complaints%3A%20Advokat%20Foreningen"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdD3-Mcfgd7He3UCmnqiUIEaTJIR57KOYtispwQpjnovXHYK38hU8JrND8Kj9dkerF6zC3XdJyMO1Q_kVN2CEHvIG80MduDSWo4JtJsQYExMVJTQym62sRSegSRhWgTGodoY8DCs8N3CY/s1600/NorskAdv_JMoeDiscBrd_AGRAaby-BFGylvik-ASeland-OKlanderud_328x566.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 566px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 328px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: 95%;">Complainant filed two applications to the Oslo District Court and a subsequent application to the Norway Supreme Court in the Norway v. Breivik matter, wherein Adv.For.Respondent is a legal representative in the matter in dispute. Adv.For.Respondent appears to either individually as a legal representative in fear of White Supremacy Psycho-Tyranny-Terror, or as part of a collective conspiracy, to be a participant to the obstruction of Justice by Denying the Defendant his Political Necessity Defence Treason Trial. <br />
<br />
It appears as if the legal participants involved in this matter are involved in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial on the world stage, demonstrating to the world how to rob a Political Dissenter Terrorist of his rule of law right to a Treason Trial. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://heimdals.blogspot.com/2012/06/breivik-case-and-use-of-soviet.html">Breivik Case & Use of Soviet Phychiatric Hospitals as Methods for Discrediting Political Ideas</a>:<br />
<br />
Reidar Roll was the Secretary General for the ICDE for 20 years. He writes on his blog at Minervas: Breivik Case and the Use of Soviet Phychiatric Hospitals as Methods for Discrediting Political Ideas that he is not impressed with the Norwegian State Attorney's strategy of focussing on a Political Psychiatry Trial; instead of a Political Terror Treason Trial; which he says is “dangerously close to using Soviet methods to supress political ideas that are seen to be dangerous to the social democratic order in Norway.” </span></blockquote>
<br /><a name='more'></a>
<br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJZPj_1SWXWvyLlmRAgy0CECpSqhbfzctqlXhs97tHB4maoYbOMEvkQ9wg8GGeJtrggM9CDTSYcuf0w6P8PMn3xY-0nr91BulyjINw0y0Hspz-SGwc5NgHa1VtgcBwZpc3PRRkdJ8Mrs/s1600/NorwayVBreivik_FleurdeLis_MargaretHagen_556x119.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<blockquote>
<strong><span style="font-size: 120%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Norsk Advokat: Disciplinary Board Complaints: </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 105%;">Fagforbundet M.N.B.A: Anne-Gry Rønning-Aaby (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_discbrd_agra?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqCNLXnqkeepgIcAK13xw6JD6hKD8UMZcfoyLnzFu8PTI6_rsUuQ_tyqjQvK7UFNOQU7D2ndUfzhpID5YeZUZmGhGSUQ5SAGCM5pQnIK6NuR6_8P8WyKvfDzTtr6k4Jiltl_h7f9XKMbs/s1600/12-06-17_Anne-Gry+Ronning-Aaby_Fagforbundet+M.N.B.A.png">PoS</a>]<br />
Advokatene Borgergaten: Borghild Fjeld Gylvik (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/12-06-11_dscbrd_bfg?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVZ9m1G_MxKiVbbbENeNi15Y7m0g41CrzIJfNtwPIeCItjFKXwCH6rUy1PjC-5OmPHXEPVoPAAm4rWjN2n7AJL0E_mtOobR5FHXUPKYRusVl3DpCOIkMQBZ3uui0n1mIBVXyl0ZMd0UdY/s1600/12-06-17_Borghild+Fjeld+Gylvik_Advokatene+Borgergaten.png">PoS</a>]<br />
Advokathuset Feydt & Hamborgstrøm DA: Arne Seland (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_dscbrd_as?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgN3knIJ_oHskOxx8YA4LsHMfGMjozjhkS7TeYKKbaKGc4zXcQjZuxjpyb9m0pHMG4dIU7rQHee5jR5_FpNDal5M23a18Rhyphenhyphen6szb5GwF2UjpqShUJfazEA0OvRhY73rHfNemz1wDPqVlN4/s1600/12-06-17_Arne+Seland_Advokathuset+Feydt+%2526+Hamborgstr%25C3%25B8m+DA.png">PoS</a>]<br />
Advokatene Klanderud Klanderud Bergby: Ole Klanderud (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120622_dscbrd_ok?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_QXFlCx3UFGP_F76FzqNpZ6vD2-iDGulmDsLCnIRsZXeucEJ7nGIAjXiBMwfX-LJpeN5kYyADWejX1zjEElRht-uOr0cuUYjutEUh6nKKw61-aKGtxDWDE6xW1Kaf8OmW-MMsmrv_Mc0/s1600/12-06-17_Ole+Klanderud_Advokatene+Klanderud+Klanderud+Bergby.png">PoS</a>]<br />
</span></strong></blockquote>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Complaint: Violation of: 2.1 (Independence), 2.2 (Honesty), 2.4 (Multiculti Legal Respect) & 4,1 (Rule of Law Conduct) of <a href="http://www.advokatforeningen.no/Etiske-regler/Internasjonale-regler/CCBEs-etiske-regler-norsk/" target="_blank">CCBE Code of Ethics (Norwegian translation)</a>: Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial, to (1) deny Defendant his Political Necessity Treason Trial; and (2) support Corruption of the Court to deny submittal to the Court of Controversial Evidence related to: [1] Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; [2] Norway’s endorsement of Political Psychiatry & Psychiatric Fraud; [3] Masculine Insecurity Human Farming for Profit Kaffir Legal Matrix; [4] Norwegian Goverments Endorsement for ANC’s Terrorism & Breeding War; [5] Norwegian Commitment to Rainbow Race Multiculturism is a Fraud</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">[A] Overview of Complaint: </span></span></strong><br />
<br />
Complainant filed two applications to the Oslo District Court and a subsequent application to the Norway Supreme Court in the Norway v. Breivik matter, wherein Respondent is a legal representative, on behalf of Victims Family/ies in the matter in dispute. Respondent appears to either individually as a legal representative, be petrified of White Supremacy Psycho-Tyranny-Terror, or as part of a collective conspiracy, to be a participant to the obstruction of Justice by Denying the Defendant his Political Necessity Defence Treason Trial. <br />
<br />
A Political Necessity Treason Trial would examine whether the Defendant’s Political Necessity Evidence is beyond reasonable doubt sufficient to justify his innocence; or diminish his guilt. Expert witnesses would be able to be subpoenaed to determine whether his Political Necessity allegations are true or not. <br />
<br />
This StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial Insanity Fishing Expedetion appears to be implying that Norwegian White Supremacy Psychiatry believes that they are God and can decide whether its ‘normal’ for white men to be corporate terrorists, but not violent terrorist Jihadi’s. <br />
<br />
It appears as if the legal participants involved in this matter are involved in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial on the world stage, demonstrating to the world how to rob a Political Dissenter Terrorist of his rule of law right to a Treason Trial. <br />
<br />
<b>Breivik Case & Use of Soviet Phychiatric Hospitals as Methods for Discrediting Political Ideas</b>:<br />
<br />
Reidar Roll was the Secretary General for for the ICDE for 20 years. He writes on his blog at Minervas: <a href="http://heimdals.blogspot.com/2012/06/breivik-case-and-use-of-soviet.html">Breivik Case and the Use of Soviet Phychiatric Hospitals as Methods for Discrediting Political Ideas</a> that he is not impressed with the Norwegian State Attorney's strategy of focussing on a Political Psychiatry Trial; instead of a Political Terror Treason Trial; which he says is “dangerously close to using Soviet methods to supress political ideas that are seen to be dangerous to the social democratic order in Norway.”<br />
<blockquote>
“It is time to review the performance of the prosecution. They have failed to understand or admit that they are dealing with a political case, and not a case of insanity.”<br />
<br />
“Breivil attacked the Norwegian Labour Party, blaming them for destroying Norway by permtting unchecked muslim immigration. A huge number of Norwegians share that opinion.”<br />
<br />
“From the very beginning the prosecution had to understand that they deal with a political terror attack on the Labour party. Not on Norway. On the Labour Party. The distinction seems to be important to understand.”<br />
<br />
The prosecution have spent an amazing amount of time trying to assert that Breivik’s Knights Templar network does not exist. The Knights Templar were an order who, during the Crusades fought against the muslims. The political symbolism for Breivik in that name is rather clear, also that he engages in political propaganda.<br />
<br />
Mr Breivik’s political fight is likely to continue from jail. He will want to see such networks as the Knights Templar develop, prosper, and take action against the immigration of Islam into Europe through violence. These ideas will not go away by forcing mental illness on the ideas. which is what the prosecution seems to be doing. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
Soviet psychiatric hospitals known as "psikhushkas" were used by the Soviet authorities as prisons in order to isolate hundreds or thousands of political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally. <br />
<br />
The Norwegian state attorney strategy does not impress us. They are dangerously close to using Soviet methods to supress political ideas that are seen to be dangerous to the social democratic order in Norway.</blockquote>
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">[B] Chronology of Facts</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<b>30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court: Habeus Mentem:</b><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
[1] On 30 November 2011, complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2011/12/oslo-district-court-norway-v-breivik.html" target="_blank">filed an Application to the Oslo District Court</a>: Application for a [I] writ of Habeus Mentem on behalf of Anders Breivik psycho-cultural integrity right to a free and fair trial; and [II] writ of Certiorari/Review of the Psychiatric Evaluation Report of Psychiatrists: Synne Serheim and Torgeir Husby as to the Mens Rea political necessity criminal liability of Anders Breivik terrorist acts, on 22 July 2011. (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/111130_breivik-habeus?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage" target="_blank">PDF</a>)<br />
<br />
[2] On 15 December 2012 complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2011/12/notice-to-oslo-court-request-date-judge.html" target="_blank">informed the court</a> that: “Please could you confirm: (1) The date my application is to be submitted to Judge Opsahl, or the relevant Judge, for their consideration. (2) The date the said Judge intends to provide me with their ruling on the matter.” <br />
<br />
[3] There has been no response from the Clerk of the Court. I imagine that the Judge has ordered the Clerk to ignore the application. Refusal to respond to an application implies that the application is being denied, and that the applicant is unworthy of a transparent due process response . A complaint has been filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges.<br />
<br />
[4] Respondent’s silence on the matter is a violation of their CCBE Ethical Duties to the court and all applicants to courts in all court disputes. </blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<b>15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court: Amicus Curiae:</b><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
[1] On 15 April 2012, Complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/no-v-breivik-ecofeminist-application-to.html" target="_blank">filed an Application to the Oslo District Court</a>: Application to proceed as In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amicus Curiae for an Order (1) to approve the Applicant as an In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amici Curiae, and (2) Amending the Charges Against the Defendant and Applicant to include Treason in terms of Article 85 of Norwegian Constitution, and if found guilty, in a free and fair trial; to be executed by firing squad. The application requested the Prosecution and Defence to respond by 23 April 2012 either consenting to, or objecting to, the application. (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120414_amicus?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage" target="_blank">PDF</a>)<br />
<br />
[2] On 26 April 2012, Complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/update-ecofeminist-applic-to-oslo-court.html" target="_blank">informed the court that</a>: “There has been no response from the Prosecution and Defence either consenting to, or objecting to, my application to proceed as an Amicus. Please could you confirm: (1) The date my application is to be submitted to Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, or the relevant Judge, for her/their consideration. (2) The date the said Judge intends to provide me with their ruling approving or denying my application.” <br />
<br />
[3] There has been no response from the Clerk of the Court. I imagine that the Judge has ordered the Clerk to ignore the application. Refusal to respond to an application implies that the application is being denied, and that the applicant is unworthy of a transparent due process response . A complaint has been filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges.<br />
<br />
[4] If approved, the Applicants Amicus written submissions would (a) address alternative legal arguments to those of both the Prosecution and Defense, i.e. from a Problem Solving Radical Transparency EcoFeminists perspective as opposed to the Prosecution & Defense’s Parasite Leeching Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal perspectives; (b) ‘argue points deemed too far reaching for emphasis by parties intent on winning their particular Parasite Leeching Masculine Insecurity case’ ; (c) ‘apprise the court of Problem Solving Radical Transparency EcoFeminists legal, social, economic, ecological and cultural enquiry implications for its consideration’ to allow the court to base its decision on a larger, more comprehensive, and more accurate reality based natural law legal framework; (d) provide the court with hard evidence of (I) non-violent Jus Sanguinis African White Refugee applications filed to European Heads of State for France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom and NATO Military Committee; providing evidentiary arguments for support for a Boer Volkstaat; or Jus Sanguinis Right of Return to Europe for African White Refugees; (II) how former and current UNHCR, ECRE and ELENA Officials <a href="http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/search/label/*%20ECRE-ELENA%3A%20Anti-White%20Refugee%20Bias" target="_blank">deliberately wish to censor the issue of African White Refugees from public scrutiny and knowledge</a>; so that the court’s final judgment shall include a Problem Solving Radical Transparency EcoFeminists legal analysis .<br />
<br />
[5] Respondents silence on the matter is a violation of their CCBE Ethical Duties to the court and all applicants to courts in all court disputes. </blockquote>
<br />
<b>10 May 2012 Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review & Declaratory Orders:</b><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
[1] On 10 May 2012, Complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/ecofeminists-deep-green-ecology.html" target="_blank">filed an Application to the Norway Suprem Court</a>: Application (1) to be admitted as a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee; (2) for An Order demanding the Norwegian Ministry of Culture to act in accordance to European Court of Human Rights ruling in Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom, and clarify in adequately accessible and sufficiently precise statement; whether Norway is (A) a ‘Children of the Rainbow’ State legally committed to Multiculturalism, providing all cultures their right to invoke cultural law and hence granting the Applicant her rights to invoke Radical Honoursty cultural law; or (B) a Monocultural Indigenous European Supremacy Legal Hegemonic State, and that the Labour Party Immigration policy is a tactic to maintain their grip on power, by importing Non-Western immigrants as Labour Party vote-fodder; (3) to Review the Oslo District Court failure to act in accordance of due process to a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee Applicant member of the Radical Honesty culture. (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120510_nsc-rev?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage" target="_blank">PDF</a>)<br />
<br />
[2] On 11 May 2012 complainant requested from Norway Supreme Court Officials: Mr. Svein Andersen / Mr. Kjersti Ruud: “Could you kindly clarify when the Registrar shall issue a Case Number; or whether you require additional documentation or information?” <br />
<br />
[3] On 15 May 2012, Kjersti Buun Nygaard <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/no-supreme-crt-dep-sec-gen-kjersti-buun.html" target="_blank">responded with</a>: “Reference is made to your e-mails regarding the above issue. Please be advised that the Supreme Court of Norway only handles appeals against judgments given by the lower courts and can consequently not deal with the issue mentioned in your e-mails. Further inquiries from you regarding the above issue can not be expected to be answered.”<br />
<br />
[4] On 15 May 2012, complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/no-supreme-crt-dep-sec-gen-kjersti-buun.html" target="_blank">responded with</a>: (I) Error in Supreme Court: Deputy Secretary General: Kjersti Buun Nygaard Response to SHARP Application to Supreme Court for Declaratory Orders and Review of Oslo District Court’s Decisions; (II) Notice of Commencement of Hungerstrike in absence of Supreme Court Case number by 17:00 on 22 May 2012.<br />
<br />
[5] On 17 May 2012, complainant filed an <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/16-may-ecofeminist-death-battalion.html" target="_blank">Environmental Crime Complaint to Interpol, via Norway Police</a>; Charges: Obstruction of Environmental & Indigenous Rights Justice Committed by Chief Justice Tore Schei & Dep. Sec. Gen: Kjersti Nygaard<br />
<br />
[6] There has been no response from any Supreme Court official. A complaint has been filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges.<br />
<br />
[7] Respondents silence on the matter is a violation of their CCBE Ethical Duties to the court and all applicants to courts in all court disputes. </blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">[C] Controversial Arguments in Complainants Applications</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle<br />
<br />
“There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world.” – Thomas Jefferson</blockquote>
<br />
Controversial issues include (1) the <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/pm-stoltenberg-and-1676-no-gov.html" target="_blank">political</a> and <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/482-norwegian-lawyers-law-professors.html" target="_blank">legal</a> elite’s paranoia to confront the Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (2) Norways political, academic and legal elites paranoia to confront Norways endorsement of Political Psychiatry; and (3) Western civilisation’s Masculine Insecurity Human Farming - for <a href="http://www.teachpeace.com/Report_from_Iron_Mountain.pdf" target="_blank">Iron Mountain</a> <a href="http://warisaracket.org/dedication.html" target="_blank">‘War is a Racket</a> profit - Kaffir Legal Matrix [MIC’S WAR IS PEACE WHORE: how Norway’s ‘War is Peace’ Nobel Institute is the favourite War is Peace Whore for the International Iron Mountain ‘War is a Racket profit - Kaffir Legal Matrix Military Industrical Complex (MIC)]. <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #0a1696;">[1] Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection: </span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<br /></blockquote>
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/breivik-acquittal-or-firing-squad-if-it.html"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgFfl1FXsncT6EqKyf1QSan88xGkxprbAU2DS2lPK5zpo7kSf0nCRYzWVKEE5Z3djRdGmzxs8_wGrZAi6S-QEHmvPnOBX3w90LMnzYCZtMsHQgtTk1lBuGxb7crtTNCjiflHGMp-GW1ao/s1600/IfItBleedsItLeads_MRKerbel.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 300px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 195px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote>
<b>30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court: Habeus Mentem: Affidavit:</b><br />
<br />
[36](3) Written Statement of Consent by T. Michael Maher, Ph.D, to testify as expert witness for <i><b>How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection and Media Framing and Salience of the Population Issue</b></i> (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100522_cct2310_affid-dr-t-m-maher?mode=a_p" target="_blank">PDF</a>) and <i><b>Study: How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection</b></i> (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection?mode=a_p" target="_blank">PDF</a>)<br />
<br />
[63] While he does not share the political-cultural beliefs of Che Guevarra, Jaan Laaman, Tom Manning, Marilyn Buck, Carlos the Jackal, Nelson Mandela, Robert McBride, etc (left wing terrorists: none of whom were considered by conservative prosecutors to require psychological evaluation, but who were allowed their day in court to take personal and political responsibility for their politically violent criminal acts); I imagine they may find themselves in agreement as to how Mainstream Access-to-Discourse Gatekeeper editors censorship contributed to their decision-making to resort to political necessity violence. <br />
<br />
[64] Excerpt: <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100718_rhwr-concourt-amicus?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage" target="_blank">Amicus Curiae to SA Constitutional Court (CCT 23-10)</a>: Mainstream Access-to-Discourse-Gatekeeper Editors censorship of nonviolent political grievances and problem solving activism facilitate a pressure cooker socio-political reality for their ‘If it Bleads, it Leads’ corporate propaganda profits, in knowledge application of: <br />
<br />
1. ‘As long as there is some possibility of getting results by political means, the chances that any political group or individual will turn violent are truly radically small, or maybe vanishingly small’; <br />
<br />
2. ‘The exposure in the media is what gets people’s attention. People follow what is happening in the news, not what is happening in the courts’; <br />
<br />
3. ‘[Editors] abuse of media power, by means of strategies whereby they abuse public discourse/free speech resources; by providing certain parties with preferential and special access to such public discourse, and severely restricting or denying others any access to such public discourse; <br />
<br />
4. Mainstream media avoid addressing or enquiring into root causes of problems as reported in <i><b><a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection?mode=a_p" target="_blank">How and Why Journalists Avoid Population – Environment connection</a></b></i>; and censor non-violent root-cause problem solving activism.<br />
<br />
<b>10 May 2012 Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review & Declaratory Orders:</b><br />
<br />
[4] Applicant: Radical Honoursty Transparency Political Necessity EcoFeminist Terrorist:<br />
<br />
[5] I have political motivated criminal convictions for: Terrorism: On 18 June 2002 (Phi Day and President Mbeki’s 60th birthday) I made a bomb threat to the P.W. Botha International airport in George and then turned myself into the Police, based upon the political necessity of exposing SA’s Truth and Reconciliation Fraud (particularly the relationship between overpopulation and terrorism and the media’s coverup of overpopulation-environment-terrorism connections). I was sentenced to two years correctional supervision.<br />
<br />
[6] The applicant has filed the following non-violent applications to request South African and other International Authorities support her minority right to public discourse on the matter of (a) the importance of a Deep Ecology Sustainability Bill of Rights and worldview; (b) Population/Demographic Masculine Insecurity Breeding War roots of Political and Resource war violence, including Apartheid Violence; (c) the relationship between Media Censorship of Overpopulation and it’s Resource War and Terrorism consequences, (d) Jus Sanguinis European Indigenous Citizenship for African White Refugees, (e) equitable recognition of the Radical Honoursty culture, (f) South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation (TRC) Fraud’s African White Refugee consequences<br />
<br />
[33] <b>If It Bleeds, It Leads Media’s Population–Terror Connection Masculine Insecurity</b>:<br />
<br />
"[Breivik] emphasizes that if he had not been censored by the media all his life, he would not have had to do what he did. He believes the media have the main responsibility for what has happened because they did not publish his opinions.... The low-intensity civil war that he had already described, had lasted until now with ideological struggle and censorship of cultural conservatives...... He explains that this is the worst day of his life and that he has dreaded this for 2 years. He has been censored for years. He mentions Dagbladet and Aftenposten as those who among other things have censored him..... He says that he also wrote “essays” that he tried to publish via the usual channels, but that they were all censored..... The subject summarizes: As long as more than twelve were executed, the operation will still be a success. The experts ask how the number twelve comes into consideration. Twelve dead are needed to penetrate the censorship wall, he explains..... About his thoughts on the Utøya killings now, the subject says: The goal was to execute as many as possible. At least 30. It was horrible, but the number had to be assessed based on the global censorship limit. Utøya was a martyrdom, and I am very proud of it..... The subject says in the conversation that he knows the truth that is hidden from others. He believes that there is a civil war in the country. He believes he had to kill at least twelve, because there is a censorship-wall preventing an open debate about what is happening in the country..... So I knew I had to cross a certain threshold to exceed the censorship-wall of the international media." -- <i><b>Oslo Organized Crime Police Investigation Report: "Explanation of 22 July 2011</b></i>, doc 08,01"<br />
<br />
[34] On 22 April 2012 (Earth Day), Applicant distributed the “<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/breivik-acquittal-or-firing-squad-if-it.html" target="_blank">Acquittal or Firing Squad :: If It Bleeds, It Leads :: Media’s Population – Terrorism Connection Report</a>”</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<br />
It provides Scientific Journalism studies about Media Censorship in the matter of Norway v. Breivik, detailing Media Masculine (Transparency) Insecurity surrounding the ‘Better an Honest Enemy; than a False Friend’ events of support for a free and fair trial for Breivik from a Pasthtun Pakistani and a Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist (Applicant).<br />
<br />
The Report detailed how the Media’s Anders Breivik Narrative appears to be:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A. * Breivik is legally insane<br />
B. * His ‘If It Bleads, It Leads’ justification for Terrorism is Unjustified </blockquote>
<br />
However the Media Censored information such as: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
C. * Whores of the Court Myth of Mental Illness: Insanity is to PharmaPsychiatry what Heresy was to the Inquisition<br />
D. * Media’s If It Bleads, It Leads Population-Terrorism Connection </blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #0a1696;">[2] Norway’s endorsement of Political Psychiatry and Psychiatric Fraud</span></span></strong><br />
<br /></blockquote>
<a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg662oH3IML7mIvuyp8Xnpv8ww1MDa1SUHCw0-vY9n4WfFpvfpTTsvwsbmMvxaJ0GSHHRwBZIbJ0cL2B8Hqz4vc1bvoKGOiiswGCa1Ez3EINXNliqtL3RJ5z8C-n3yTX6xWG7kcUK-pufs/s1600/LucyJohnstone_Users-Abusers-Psychiatry_DSM_331x588.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 588px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 331px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote>
<b>30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court: Habeus Mentem: Affidavit:</b><br />
<br />
[72] It would appear to me that any psychiatrist who considered themselves to be a fundamentalist politically correct cultural Marxist multi-culturalist as well as honourable democrat, should honourably recuse themselves from an enquiry into Mr. Breivik’s alleged sanity, based upon their predisposition to be biased towards his actions. <br />
<br />
[73] The absence of doing so, only proves Mr. Breivik’s actions to have been fully justified, and his charges to be accurate regarding the bias and lack of commitment to democratic values open transparent discourse practiced by fundamentalist politically correct cultural Marxist multi-culturalists. <br />
<br />
[76-77] ARGUMENT: Breivik clearly and very ‘reasonably’ explains his Political Necessity Motivations for his Political Terrorist acts:<br />
<br />
[78-80] ARGUMENT: Breivik clearly details his beliefs that hardcore Marxists, cultural Marxists Multiculturalists are deceiving indigenous Europeans, by implementing a demographic conquering Breeding War Act of War upon them. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<br />
<b>April 15, 2012 Application to Oslo District Court: Amicus Curiae: Affidavit:</b><br />
<br />
[26] <b>HABEUS MENTEM :: THE RIGHT TO LEGAL SANITY </b><br />
<br />
In Aldous Huxley’s <i><b>A Brave New World Revisited</b></i> he describes the insidious conspiracy to manipulate the masses by propaganda and lies, so as to make them controllable under the “steadily increasing pressures of over-population and of the over-organization imposed by growing numbers and advancing technology”:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It is perfectly possible for a man to be out of prison, and yet not free -- to be under no physical constraint and yet to be a psychological captive, compelled to think, feel and act as the representatives of the national State, or of some private interest within the nation, want him to think, feel and act. There will never be such a thing as a writ of habeas mentem; for no sheriff or jailer can bring an illegally imprisoned mind into court, and no person whose mind had been made captive by the methods outlined in earlier articles would be in a position to complain of his captivity. The nature of psychological compulsion is such that those who act under constraint remain under the impression that they are acting on their own initiative. The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him, the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. That he is not free is apparent only to other people. His servitude is strictly objective.</blockquote>
The problem – of course – for those who partake in this insidious conspiracy is that ultimately the propagandists begin to believe their own propaganda.<br />
<br />
[27] <b>Marketing of Madness: The Myth of Mental Illness Experts</b> (21:04) <br />
<br />
‘There is no such thing as mental illness. Psychiatric diagnosis of ‘mental disorders’ is just a way of stigmatising behaviour that society does not want to live with. Psychiatry thrives on coercion and is replacing religion as a form of social control.’ - Dr. Thomas Szasz<br />
<br />
“Biological psychology/psychiatry is a total perversion of medicine and science, and a fraud.” - Neurologist Fred Baughman, <i><b>The ADHD Fraud: How Psychiatry Makes "Patients" of Normal Children</b></i>.<br />
<br />
“Going to a psychiatrist has become one of the most dangerous things a person can do.” - Peter Breggin, MD; <i><b>Toxic Psychiatry.</b></i><br />
<br />
“There is no such thing as a mental disorder. A mental disorder is whatever someone says it is, and if the person saying "This is a mental disorder", has enough power and influence, then people believe 'Oh, that is a mental disorder'.” - Dr. Paula Caplan, Harvard <br />
<br />
“The entire enterprise of defining mental disorder is pointless, at least in so far as the goal is to allow us to recognize ‘genuine’ or ‘true’ disorders” - Dr. Mary Boyle, <i><b>Schizophrenia: A Scientific Delusion?</b></i><br />
<br />
“DSM is a book of tentatively assembled agreements. Agreements don’t always make sense, nor do they always reflect reality. You can have agreements among experts without validity. Even if you could find four people who agreed that the earth is flat, that the moon is made of green cheese, that smoking cigarettes poses no health risks, or that politicians are never corrupt, such agreements do not establish truth.” – Herb Kutchins and Stuart Kirk: <i><b>Making us Crazy: DSM: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental Disorders </b></i><br />
<br />
“To admit the central role of value judgments and cultural norms [in the creation of the DSM] is to give the whole game away. The DSM has to be seen as reliable and valid, or the whole enterprise of medical psychiatry collapses.” -- Lucy Johnstone, <i><b>The Users and Abusers of Psychiatry</b></i><br />
<br />
“[Alleged Mental Disorders] are based on a grab-bag of checklists for disorders that are published in a book called the DSM; which is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. There are no statistics in this book, by the way. That just makes it sound more scientific.” -- Dr Margaret Hagen, Professor of Psychology, Boston University, <i><b>Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice</b></i>.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice</b></i>, Margaret A. Hagen, Ph.D | <i><b>The Second Sin</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>Coercion as Cure: A Critical History of Psychiatry</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>Insanity: The Idea and its Consequences</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>Law, Liberty and Psychiatry</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>A Lexicon of Lunacy: Metaphoric Malady, Moral Responsibility and Psychiatry</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>Liberation by Oppression: A Comparative Study of Slavery and Psychiatry</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>The Age of Madness: The history of Involuntary Mental Hospitalization</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>The Myth of Psychotherapy</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>Psychiatry: The Science of Lies</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>The Therapeutic State: Psychiatry in the Mirror of Current Events</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>The ADHD Fraud: How Psychiatry Makes "Patients" of Normal Children</b></i>, Fred A. Bauchmann, Jr, MD | <i><b>Toxic Psychiatry</b></i>, Peter Breggin, MD | <i><b>They Say You're Crazy: How the Worlds Most Powerful Psychiatrists Decide Who's Normal</b></i>, Paula J. Caplan Ph.D | <i><b>Schizophrenia: A Scientific Delusion</b></i>, Mary Boyle | <i><b>Making us Crazy: DSM: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental Disorders</b></i>, Herb Kutchins & Stuart A Kirk | <i><b>Users and Abusers of Psychiatry: A Critical Look at Traditional Psychiatric Practice</b></i>, Lucy Johnstone<br />
<br />
[28] <b>NORWAYS HISTORY OF POLITICAL PSYCHIATRY</b><br />
<br />
An analysis by SINTEF (research organisation) in 1996, showed that about 45 percent of all psychiatric hospitalisations in Norwegian psychiatric clinics, are coercive. In other EU countries coercive institutionalization is between 5-15 percent. -- Fampo, Norway <a href="http://www.fampo.info/">www.fampo.info</a><br />
<br />
<b>Knut Hamsen</b>: Author, winner of Nobel Prize in Literature in 1920: <i><b>The Growth of the Soil</b></i>. Charged with treason for his writings in support of Hitler, but then declared to be mentally impaired by psychiatrists to avoid Norway giving him a treason trial. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<br />
<b>Arnold Juklerod</b>: Institutionalized at Gaustad in 1971, as “paranoid schizophrenic,” after exposing corruption in the Education Dept. His alleged “unchangeable paranoid false ideas” were subsequently proven true, but Norwegian psychiatrists refused to delete his ‘paranoid schizophrenia’ diagnosis. <br />
<br />
<b>Synnove Fjellbakk Tafto</b>: A diplomat and jurist was labelled mentally ill and institutionalized after exposing massive corruption in the Norwegian Foreign Service. Author: Skjoldmoysagaen.<br />
<br />
<b>Kare Torvholm & Oddmar Remoy</b>: Dr. Bjorn Martin Aasen, justified their institutionalization because: "he belongs to a civil network with both local, national, & international connections, which purpose is to disclose criminal things...; which fulfills their mental disorder requirements'...<br />
<br />
<b>Anders Breivik</b>: Does Breivik's 22/7 acts expose the corruption of Norway's Immigration policies? Is Breivik qualified to fulfil Norways mental disorder requirements? Does Breivik “belong to a civil network with both local, national, & international connections, with the purpose to disclose criminal things”?<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>10 May 2012 Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review & Declaratory Orders:</b><br />
<br />
[34] On 22 April 2012 (Earth Day), Applicant distributed the “<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/breivik-acquittal-or-firing-squad-if-it.html" target="_blank">Acquittal or Firing Squad :: If It Bleeds, It Leads :: Media’s Population – Terrorism Connection Report</a>”</blockquote>
<blockquote>
It provides Scientific Journalism studies about Media Censorship in the matter of Norway v. Breivik, detailing Media Masculine (Transparency) Insecurity surrounding the ‘Better an Honest Enemy; than a False Friend’ events of support for a free and fair trial for Breivik from a Pasthtun Pakistani and a Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist (Applicant).<br />
<br />
The Report detailed how the Media’s Anders Breivik Narrative appears to be:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
E. * Breivik is legally insane<br />
F. * His ‘If It Bleads, It Leads’ justification for Terrorism is Unjustified </blockquote>
<br />
However the Media Censored information such as: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
G. * Whores of the Court Myth of Mental Illness: Insanity is to PharmaPsychiatry what Heresy was to the Inquisition<br />
H. * Media’s If It Bleads, It Leads Population-Terrorism Connection </blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #0a1696;">[3] Masculine Insecurity Human Farming for Profit Kaffir Legal Matrix:</span></span></strong><br />
<br /></blockquote>
<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" style="width: 350px;"><tbody>
<tr><td width="350"><div align="center">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="255" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Xbp6umQT58A" width="350"></iframe><strong><span style="font-size: 80%;"><span style="color: #0a1696;">Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement (<a href="http://youtu.be/Xbp6umQT58A">13:10</a>)</span></span></strong></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<blockquote>
<b>30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court: Habeus Mentem: Affidavit:</b><br />
<br />
[29] <b>MASCULINE (REASON & LOGIC) INSECURITY PARASITE LEECHING LEADERSHIP (SIC)</b> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
The male does not <i>have</i> an erection, like a property or a permanent quality (although how many men wish to <i>have</i> one is anybody’s guess). The penis is in a state of erection, as long as the man is in a state of excitement. If for one reason or another something interferes with this excitement, the man has nothing. And in contrast to practically all other kinds of behaviour, the erection cannot be faked. George Groddek, one of the most outstanding, although unknown, psychoanalysts, used to comment that a man, after all, is a man for only a few minutes; most of the time he is a little boy. Of course, man does not become a little boy in his total being, but precisely in that aspect which for many a man is the proof that he is a man. It is not, then, surprising that the anxieties of men and women refer to different spheres; the man's concerning his ego, his prestige, his value in the eyes of the woman….” – <i><b>Sex & Character</b></i>, Erich Fromm<br />
<br />
[30] Masculine Insecurity is not necessarily a masculine phenomena: <br />
<br />
[31] I refer to the concept of ‘Logic and Reason Insecurity’ as ‘masculine insecurity’ because the majority of the worlds cultures have and continue to be patriarchal, the drivers of those cultures were men; (2) The concepts of ‘reason’ and ‘logic’ have been, and are described as masculine strengths, whereas emotion and intuition are ‘feminine’ strengths. <br />
<br />
Robert McElvaine: In <i><b><a href="http://www.fotim.ac.za/fotim_conferences/genderconf/papers/mcelvaine_paper.pdf" target="_blank">Eve’s Seed: Masculine Insecurity, Metaphor, and the Shaping of History</a></b></i>, and <i><b>Eve’s Seed: Biology, the Sexes and the Course of History</b></i>, McElvaine described it thus: </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Karl Marx had it wrong. Class has, to be sure, been a major factor in history; but class itself is a derivative concept that is based on the ultimate causative power in history: sex. Marx’s famous formulation must be revised: The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of struggles based on the division of our species into two sexes, jealousies emanating from this division, exaggerations of the differences between the sexes, misunderstandings about sexual reproductive power, and metaphors derived from sex. Together, these closely related matters constitute the most important, but largely neglected, set of motive forces in human history. Control -- or the claim of control -- over the means of <b>reproduction</b> has been even more fundamental to history than has control of the means of <b>production</b>. ..<br />
<br />
[..] Sexually insecure men often seek validation of their manhood by pursuing power. This is one of the reasons that the notawoman definition of manhood has had such an impact throughout history. All men do not suffer from such sexual insecurity, but those who do have frequently made their way into positions of power and so have had a disproportionate influence on the shaping of cultures and institutions…<br />
<br />
[..] The real importance of insecure masculinity, again, is that those men who suffer from it are most apt to seek power in order to compensate for their self doubts. Sexually linked motivations have been evident in men engaging in war since the earliest times.</blockquote>
<br />
Masculine Insecure Parasite Leeching Feminism is even more psychologically, intellectually and culturally insecure than its patriarchal counterpart; whereas Masculine Security/Radical Transparency Masculinity is best exemplified by Ray Dalio (Blackwater Associates) and Brad Blanton (Radical Honesty) and Masculine Secure Feminism would probably be best exemplified by Mimi Silbert (Delancey Street Foundation) and in an actual Matriarchy, I would imagine the Mosuo in South West China, and many pre-Industrial Aryan societies – cultural paradigms which are and were focussed on logic, reason and living in harmony with nature and resolving grievances publicly, as opposed to by fake public relations, would be good examples. <br />
<br />
[32] <b>Masculine Insecurity Obstructs Radical Transparency Communication Problem Solving</b>.<br />
<br />
Masculine Insecurity is the opposite of Radical Transparency: It is the psychological and intellectual inability to constructively and sincerely listen and engage in a search for the truth, with individuals whom you may disagree with. A desire to silence and ignore ideas which threaten the insecure masculine identity. Radical Transparency demands non-hierarchical recognition of all criticism and ideas and criticism are judged on their merit , not the individuals socio-political status, because its ultimate focus is Problem Solving . Masculine Insecurity (the opposite of Radical Transparency) only addresses criticism from those who are deemed socio-political peers; and if so, the discussion of the criticism is always discussed within the approved ‘masculine insecurity’ worldview parasite leeching ‘<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMPAfDHEFbQ" target="_blank">Left Wing vs. Right Wing Political Control’ paradigm</a> . The goal of the criticism is not problem solving or to resolve a damaged relationship, but simply propaganda warfare in the battle for Bullshitting the Public to garner more psychological, intellectual or political slaves and cannon fodder for the Left or Right Wing Parasite Leeching ‘Leader’ (sic).<br />
<br />
It is not feminism that is the source of Western Civilisation’s destruction, but Masculine Insecurity (whether patriarchal or feminist is irrelevant). Masculine Insecurity is the root psychological and intellectual problem that obstructs Western civilisation from confronting the Parasite Leeching Economic, Intellectual and Psychological Paradigm that is the source of its impending ecological destruction, by means of overpopulation (third world immigration) and overconsumption (<a href="http://www.jasonbrent.weebly.com/" target="_blank">Peak Oil</a> and <a href="http://www.nnrscarcity.com/" target="_blank">Peak Non Renewable Natural Resources</a>). <br />
<br />
[33] Masculine Insecurity is the cognitive foundation of the anti-Meritocratic Parasite Leeching Leadership (sic) paradigm. It is the Root Cause of Overpopulation and Overconsumption: It Propagandizes on behalf of an exponential growth of Parasite Leeching -- ‘walking penis procreation’ overpopulation and ‘<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9167657690296627941" target="_blank">consume to demonstrate the size of my consumption penis</a>’ overconsumption -- worldview.<br />
<br />
[36] Former Judge Jason G. Brent, <i><b><a href="http://www.jasonbrent.weebly.com/" target="_blank">Humans: An Endangered Species</a></b></i>: “We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc.; you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population, an ACT OF WAR.”<br />
<br />
[37] It is self-evident that humans live on a planet with finite resources, and that resource scarcity is a major source of conflict. Hence to reduce conflict and to save resources that are vital to industrial civilisation would require earthly beings to control population growth and conserve vital resources for future generations. However the exact opposite has occurred. The worlds most valuable form of energy: oil has been squandered on predominantly ‘shitty’ products, and vital non-renewable natural resources upon which industrial civilisation relies upon, have been mined by world leaders drunk on masculine insecurity, pissing the planets resources away to figuratively <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9167657690296627941" target="_blank">extend the size of their penises</a>! <br />
<br />
[38] <b>Masculine Insecurity’s Greatest Weapon: Parasite Leech’s Brood Sows ‘wombs’</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b>Houari Boumediene, President of Algeria, at the United Nations, 1974</b>: “The wombs of our women will give us victory.” [“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” (Boumediene was an ardent supporter of the ANC and SWAPO)]<br />
<br />
<b>Yasser Arafat: Palestinian Womb is his people’s greatest asset</b> [Arnon Soffer, a geography professor at Israel's Haifa University and a lecturer at the Israeli Army's Staff and Command college, first warned of the impending Jewish demographic minority in the 1980s, but was widely dismissed. He predicted Arabs would outnumber Jews in both Israel proper and the occupied territories by 2010. In February 2001, the night of his election, Sharon sent an aide to ask Soffer for a copy of his 1987 treatise about the demographic threat to Israel; it was the same study that had led Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to declare in the late 1980s that the "Palestinian womb" was his people's greatest weapon.]<br />
<br />
<b>Nelson Mandela’s ANC: ANC ‘Operation Production’ Policy:</b> African women forced (I) to have sex with ANC cadres, & (2) not allowed to use contraception. Contravention meant detention, 'Apartheid agent' People’s Court trial & sentence of Necklacing, incl. broken bottles shoved up their vagina. [Johannes Harnischfeger, <i><b><a href="http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2009/12/ancs-embrace-of-occult-politics.html" target="_blank">Witchcraft and the State in South Africa</a></b></i> (*German version of published in Anthropopos, 95/ 2000, S. 99-112): “Especially evening assemblies girls had to attend as well: “They would come into the house and tell us we should go. They didn't ask your mother they just said ‘come let's go.’ You would just have to go with them. They would threaten you with their belts and ultimately you would think that if you refused, they would beat you. Our parents were afraid of them” (quoted by Delius 1996:189). All those opposing the wishes of the young men were reminded, that it was every woman’s obligation to give birth to new “soldiers”, in order to replace those warriors killed in the liberation struggle. The idiom of the adolescents referred to these patriotic efforts as “operation production”. Because of exactly this reason it was forbidden for the girls to use contraceptives. (Delius 1996:189; Niehaus 1999:250)”]<br />
<br />
<b>New Black Panther Party: Dr. Khalid Muhammad</b>: Kill the White Woman as the White Man’s Military Manufacturing Center rolling out reinforcement from between her legs: In Dr. Khalid Abdul Muhammad’s 1993 <a href="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/456363/khallid_muhammads_speech_kill_the_white_man/" target="_blank">'Kill the White Man' speech</a>, at Kean College in Union Township, New Jersey, he stated among others: “Kill the women cause the women are the military manufacturing center; cause every nine months they lay down on their backs and reinforcement rolls out from between their legs. So shut down the military manufacturing center, by killing the white woman.”<br />
<br />
[65] Unfortunately, the root source of this ‘terrorism‘ in my personal opinion, lies in the corruption of the legal system, more specifically in what I refer to as KAFFIR CULTURE, LAWYERS AND LEGISLATION: the KAFFIR LEGAL MATRIX. We live in a legal matrix that has not incorporated the scientific reality into its ‘right to breed‘ legislation, constitutions, bill of rights and responsibilities or treaties, that the earth is flat, resources are finite, and breeding wars should be acknowledged as ACTS OF WAR. Unlike the corrupt Catholic Church who at least had the honour to acknowledge the criticisms of Galileo and Luther, the current corrupt legal religious matrix sale of innocence indulgences establishment, have no such honourable intentions. In the absence of dead and mangled bodies, blood and gore, any modern day Luther or Galileo‘s 95 Theses would never see the light of day; and frequently even if the Luther or Galileo accomplish the dead and mangled bodies prerequisite, the Kaffir Legal Matrix‘s political psychology denies them their day in court.<br />
<br />
<b>[66] Excerpt from Complaint to International Criminal Court (PDF):</b><br />
<br />
<b>[d] Radical Honesty SA definitions of the word „Kaffir‟, relevant to this matter</b>:<br />
<br />
[i] <b>‘Kaffir Behaviour’: Cultural Beliefs and Procreation Behaviour Definition</b>: Individuals who either independently or as a result of their cultural value systems, are incapable of, or unwilling to, practice sexual restraint and procreation responsibility; who consequently breed cockroach-prolifically without personal financial or psychological responsibility to, or emotional concern for, their offspring; and/or who abuse women and children as sexual or economic slaves procreated for such purpose; and/or whose cultural ideal of manhood endorses non-consensual sex (rape) as their sexual slavery entitlement, etc.<br />
<br />
[ii] <b>‘Kaffir Etymology’</b>: Original Etymological Definition for “Kaffir”: The word kāfir is the active participle of the Semitic root K-F-R “to cover”. As a pre-Islamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting; as they till the earth and “cover up” the seeds; which is why earth tillers are referred to as “Kuffar.” Thus, the word kāfir implies the meaning “a person who hides or covers”; To conceal, deny, hide or cover the truth.<br />
<br />
[iii] <b>‘Kaffir Legislation’ = Inalienable Right to Breed Poverty, Misery and War legislation; pretending it advocates for “peace and human rights”</b>. Kaffir Law/Legislation provides citizens with the Inalienable ‗Right to Breed‘ [and 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, etc, etc. Kaffir Legislation covers up that an ‗Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control policy + <a href="http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_from_shortage_to_longage.html" target="_blank">No Social Welfare policies or practices provides for an equilibrium carrying capacity; whereas Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control within a welfare state, results in Runaway Growth, and ultimately greater misery, poverty and war</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court: Amicus Curiae: Affidavit:</b><br />
<br />
[3](4) My Guerrilla Lawfare Worldview: The Paradox of the Masculine Insecurity <a href="http://youtu.be/gHAnrXCvavc" target="_blank">Human Farming</a> Kaffir Matrix Court: Radical Transparency Problem Solving is to the Masculine Insecurity Kaffir Matrix Court; what Martin Luther or Galileo Galilei were to the Catholic Church. 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, etc, etc. <br />
<br />
(i) The $64,000 question: Why does the Masculine Insecurity <a href="http://youtu.be/gHAnrXCvavc" target="_blank">Human Farming</a> Kaffir Legal Matrix not require citizens to voting or breeding licences???<br />
<br />
(ii) Kaffir Legislation covers up that an ‘Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control policy + <a href="http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_from_shortage_to_longage.html" target="_blank">No Social Welfare policies or practices provides for an equilibrium carrying capacity</a>; whereas Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control within a welfare state, results in Runaway Growth, and ultimately greater misery, poverty and war . <br />
<br />
(iii) Kaffir Legislation covers up that the Inalienable Right to Vote, or Universal Suffrage for the Ignorant is the road to centralisation of power and tyranny. <br />
<br />
[22] The Applicant is of the view that the main application raises novel questions which are crucial for the future credibility of Western Civilisation’s Masculine Insecurity <a href="http://youtu.be/gHAnrXCvavc" target="_blank">Human Farming</a> Kaffir Legal Matrix conceptualisation of the rule of law and the principle of legality. <br />
<br />
<b>10 May 2012 Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review & Declaratory Orders:</b><br />
<br />
[as in 15 April 2012 application to Oslo Court, point [3](4)]</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #0a1696;">[4] Norwegian Goverments Endorsement for ANC’s Terrorism & Breeding War:</span></span></strong><br />
<br /></blockquote>
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/06/biko-mandela-hero-psych-frantz-fanon.html"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUOtpnpyKYJs_6kl4PiFTeUHlo9HV75Nq5sbyoI3f1zO6e7HwHJEuhCaF2Ze_aZog5ZITLNuhRiO2fh5PyfUj_sRCBtXONt_ji7Mctw9oLshyphenhyphencZx1o8F-aOOEfjO4rlwG4DBw2-nw3dxM/s1600/Biko-Mandela-FFanon-Obama-Breivik-ColonizedMinds_366x479.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 479px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 366px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote>
<b>30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court: Habeus Mentem: Affidavit:</b><br />
<br />
[81-120] ARGUMENT: A case study: How the European politically correct cultural Marxist multicultural Anti-Apartheid movement overthrew Verwoerds Apartheid by means of political terrorism and an African breeding war; and installed the ANC regime that provides SA’s with between 3,000 to 25,000 % worse socio-political government services; & turned white South Africans into African White Refugees.<br />
<br />
<b>15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court: Amicus Curiae: Affidavit:</b><br />
<br />
[39-75] Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee: A Product of (A) European Masculine Insecurity Phallic Enhanced Colonialism and (B) African and Liberal Masculine Insecurity Anti-Apartheid Movement’s ‘Operation Production’ Breeding War<br />
<br />
[44-50] The Competitive Exclusion Principle (Apartheid) was an Act of Political Just War Self Defense to Tragedy of the Breeding War – Act of War – African Commons Exponential Population Growth:<br />
<br />
[51-54] Apartheid Inconvenient Truths Masculine Insecurity Liberals and Anti-Apartheid Movement Lack the Honour to Confront:<br />
<br />
[55-58] Masculine Insecurity Liberal Europe’s Endorsement of African Masculine Insecurity Anti-Apartheid Movement’s ‘Operation Production’ Breeding War:<br />
<br />
[59-75] Masculine Insecurity Liberal Europe’s Endorsement of African Masculine Insecurity Anti-Apartheid Movement’s Parasite Leeching TRC Fraud Social Contract:<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #0a1696;">[5] Norwegian Commitment to Rainbow Race Multiculturism is a Fraud:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<br /></blockquote>
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/06/to-see-farm-is-to-leave-farm-i-was-and.html"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqRHNzpkI_Lq2hYYNAxnsbOXvkJmpqkKfHE9MO809O2CanE0s8boidqtwnTkAQw_nO7Aki7_JBQgvYvwhL4yAGowAIJdJV2Rmb51C-FDC6YUSOlVZkVZrXKaBzK5cKUKM5aTWbow8YWMs/s1600/Co-Conspirator_NoOneRulesNoOneObeys_338x482.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 482px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 338px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote>
<b>10 May 2012 Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review & Declaratory Orders:</b><br />
<br />
[7-14] <b>B: NO COURTS: RAINBOW MULTICULTURAL / EURO-MONOCULTURAL?</b>:<br />
<br />
[7] A country which sincerely practices Multiculturalism (A) provides its citizens with the right to invoke cultural law which require the application of choice of law rules, as the SA Constitution does in S. 15 (3), 30, 31, and 185 and Apartheid Legislation enshrined; but (B) enforces the rights of citizens from all cultures to invoke cultural law, which ‘Rainbow’ South Africa does not (Radical Honesty culture and Afrikaners (Reits Four) have been denied the right to invoke cultural law, respectively: Radical Honesty Communication culture and Afrikaans/Western Voltarian Satire cultural values); but which Apartheid did allow for all black and white cultures.<br />
<br />
[11] It is the applicants working hypothesis that Norway’s alleged ‘My Rainbow Race’ commitment to Multiculturalism is a hoax; because it is not legally sincere about implementing a multicultural legal system which provides all of Norway citizens from different cultures’ with the right to invoke cultural law – whether Sharia , Zulu or Radical Honoursty – in its courts. The true reality of Norway’s Rainbow Multiculturalism is simply a bullshit-the-public-relations (PR) façade for importing Non-Western immigrants as Labour Party vote-fodder; while deceiving Non-Western immigrants of their true vote-fodder status.<br />
<br />
[14] Liberal ‘Multicultural’ Norwegians are closet white supremacy legal mono-culturalists. While condemning so-called ‘conservatives’ of ‘racism’ for their honest enemy condemnation of non-western cultural practices they consider inferior to ‘white western’ cultural values; liberal Norwegians secretly agree with conservatives, but pretend to support multiculturalism purely to import immigrant voters onto their welfare vote farm slavery plantations; but have no commitment to legislatively providing foreign cultures with the right to invoke cultural law and legally practice their foreign cultures in Norway:<br />
<blockquote>
“The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro’s friend and benefactor; and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political “football game” that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives…. Once the Negro learns to think for himself, he will no longer allow the white liberal to use him as a helpless football in the white man’s crooked game of “power politics.” The white conservatives aren’t friends of the Negro either, but they at least don’t try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them. But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro but pretend that they are smiling. The white liberals are more dangerous than the conservatives; they lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the “smiling” fox.” -- Excerpts from 1963 speech by Malcolm X: “<i><b>God’s Judgement of White America</b></i>.”</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">[D] Respondent’s conduct is a violation of their CCBE Code of Ethics duties:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
(2.1) <b>Independence</b>: to be totally free and independent from all other influences, including political or media (public relations) influence or pressure; <br />
<br />
(2.2) <b>Honesty</b>: withholding of honest information is a form of lying and deception, and also a violation of the principle that the rule of law requires legislation, including legislative alleged ‘insanity’ legislation to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom ); <br />
<br />
(2.4) <b>Multiculti Legal Respect</b>: Complainant is a paralegal member of the Radical Honesty culture [See: SA Constitutional Court Order by the Chief Justice in CCT 23-10: The Citizen v. Robert McBride on 03 May 2010: “The Chief Justice has issued the following directions: Ms. Lara Johnstone, Member of the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion is admitted as an Amicus Curiae.” (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100718_rhwr-concourt-amicus?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage" target="_blank">Annex A</a>)] and does not think it is too much ‘Multiculti Legal Respect’ to ask for any honest, impartial Lawyer to provide any individual, not just lawyers from ‘legal organisations’ with a fair honest response to their legal application to their court dispute; <br />
<br />
(4.1) <b>Rule of Law Conduct</b>: Demand that the court provide all applicants with honest and clear response from the Court regarding the status of all applications to the court, in terms of the rule of law principle that requires legislation and civil servant decisions to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom ) <br />
<br />
<b>ECHR: Rule of law requires adequately Precise and Accessible Legislation</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote>
In <i><b><a href="http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html">Lithgow & others v United Kingdom</a></b></i>, the European Court of Human Rights held that the rule of law requires provisions of legislation to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law: <br />
<blockquote>
“As regards the phrase "subject to the conditions provided for by law”, it requires in the first place the existence of and compliance with adequately accessible and sufficiently precise domestic legal provisions (see, amongst other authorities, the alone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 31-33, paras. 66-68).”</blockquote>
<br />
Respectfully Submitted <br />
<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist<br />
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity<br />
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/">http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/</a> <br />
<br />
Annexures: (Not Included: Links provided for download):<br />
[A] SA Constitutional Court Order by the Chief Justice in CCT 23-10 on 03 May 2010 (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100718_rhwr-concourt-amicus">PDF</a>)<br />
[B] 30 Nov 2011 Application to Oslo District Court for a Writ of Habeus Mentem (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/111130_breivik-habeus">PDF</a>)<br />
[C] 15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court to proceed as an Amicus Curiae (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120414_amicus">PDF</a>)<br />
[D] 10 May 2012 Appl. to Norway Supreme Court for Review & Declaratory Orders (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120510_nsc-rev">PDF</a>)<br />
[E] 15 May 2012 Error in Supreme Crt Dep Sec. Gen Response to Applic for Review (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120515_nsc-nygaard">PDF</a>)<br />
[F] 17 May 2012 Interpol Complaint: Obstruction of Env. & Ind. Rights Justice (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120517_interpol">PDF</a>)<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [Fagforbundet M.N.B.A: Anne-Gry Rønning-Aaby (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_discbrd_agra?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqCNLXnqkeepgIcAK13xw6JD6hKD8UMZcfoyLnzFu8PTI6_rsUuQ_tyqjQvK7UFNOQU7D2ndUfzhpID5YeZUZmGhGSUQ5SAGCM5pQnIK6NuR6_8P8WyKvfDzTtr6k4Jiltl_h7f9XKMbs/s1600/12-06-17_Anne-Gry+Ronning-Aaby_Fagforbundet+M.N.B.A.png">PoS</a>] | Advokatene Borgergaten: Borghild Fjeld Gylvik (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/12-06-11_dscbrd_bfg?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVZ9m1G_MxKiVbbbENeNi15Y7m0g41CrzIJfNtwPIeCItjFKXwCH6rUy1PjC-5OmPHXEPVoPAAm4rWjN2n7AJL0E_mtOobR5FHXUPKYRusVl3DpCOIkMQBZ3uui0n1mIBVXyl0ZMd0UdY/s1600/12-06-17_Borghild+Fjeld+Gylvik_Advokatene+Borgergaten.png">PoS</a>] | Advokathuset Feydt & Hamborgstrøm DA: Arne Seland (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_dscbrd_as?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgN3knIJ_oHskOxx8YA4LsHMfGMjozjhkS7TeYKKbaKGc4zXcQjZuxjpyb9m0pHMG4dIU7rQHee5jR5_FpNDal5M23a18Rhyphenhyphen6szb5GwF2UjpqShUJfazEA0OvRhY73rHfNemz1wDPqVlN4/s1600/12-06-17_Arne+Seland_Advokathuset+Feydt+%2526+Hamborgstr%25C3%25B8m+DA.png">PoS</a>] | Advokatene Klanderud Klanderud Bergby: Ole Klanderud (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120622_dscbrd_ok?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_QXFlCx3UFGP_F76FzqNpZ6vD2-iDGulmDsLCnIRsZXeucEJ7nGIAjXiBMwfX-LJpeN5kYyADWejX1zjEElRht-uOr0cuUYjutEUh6nKKw61-aKGtxDWDE6xW1Kaf8OmW-MMsmrv_Mc0/s1600/12-06-17_Ole+Klanderud_Advokatene+Klanderud+Klanderud+Bergby.png">PoS</a>]]</span></strong></blockquote>
</div>
<br />
<div align="center">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG35_mG6caC4KBxsQJyTNhzHyA6-FQtZYnz5IBLl54ORu_a-boz0PBm8YdS-VFQ4KFCJO7VNfP5YqY4Wihq9GEzTHHgCMI0I_4LLD7wdGKQFqubGiB-gXfD5pJ4p6vMDhnlhn-1EMJtAY/s1600/TolerantNorwayPolPsychBreivik_ApartheidMandelaTreason_897x596.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWMyLbwkIUbk76EGOkStxXbt3U23JYE9udiDNPVgJhiFUsKD5W1nEsV6m48kuuqlr2JXWqlLk-QJLqc3tMJKd8_gbfiWLODJK-lckkTSqwxEgyVg254soN3Q-uLJydzBqjHQfNwpjbdoE/s1600/TolerantNorwayPolPsychBreivik_ApartheidMandelaTreason_600x399.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 399px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 600px;" /></a></div>
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-79998006861086557952012-06-18T17:12:00.000-07:002012-07-01T05:54:55.197-07:00Bar Assoc: Disciplinary Complaints: TE Aansløkken | TM Mohn King | TM Wold | T Tveter | VR Nilssen | V Meland | Z Munir | Ø Aakerøy | Ø Vidhammer<div align="justify">
<br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<blockquote>
<strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Norsk Advokat Foreningen: Disciplinary Complaints: Trond Erik Aansløkken | Trude Marie Mohn King | Trude Marie Wold | Trygve Tveter | Verna Rege Nilssen | Vibeke Meland | Zulifqar Munir | Øyvind Aakerøy | Øyvind Vidhammer</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Complaint: Violation of: CCBE Code of Ethics: Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial, to (1) deny Defendant his Political Necessity Treason Trial; and (2) support Corruption of the Court to deny submittal to the Court of Controversial Evidence related to: [1] Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; [2] Norway’s endorsement of Political Psychiatry & Psychiatric Fraud; [3] Masculine Insecurity Human Farming for Profit Kaffir Legal Matrix; [4] Norwegian Goverments Endorsement for ANC’s Terrorism & Breeding War; [5] Norwegian Commitment to Rainbow Race Multiculturism is a Fraud </span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 18 June 2012</span></strong></blockquote>
</div>
<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/search/label/*%20Complaints%3A%20Advokat%20Foreningen"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD6ySOEWPg0miIHCk7HMlVKwiE06CwNmWMdHsT2_ud7yGVdzYRiDCnSlgUP-80DCtl4hVbqLaNZsT-5FvcK4hmHEzrW3YTvkdsFbezCN9RzUmW2EL1YleNe1Mj3952vHVBO_6SfG3mUxU/s1600/NorskAdv_154163_TEAanslokken_OVidhammer_327x571.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 573px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 328px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: 95%;">Complainant filed two applications to the Oslo District Court and a subsequent application to the Norway Supreme Court in the Norway v. Breivik matter, wherein Adv.For.Respondent is a legal representative in the matter in dispute. Adv.For.Respondent appears to either individually as a legal representative in fear of White Supremacy Psycho-Tyranny-Terror, or as part of a collective conspiracy, to be a participant to the obstruction of Justice by Denying the Defendant his Political Necessity Defence Treason Trial. <br />
<br />
It appears as if the legal participants involved in this matter are involved in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial on the world stage, demonstrating to the world how to rob a Political Dissenter Terrorist of his rule of law right to a Treason Trial. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://heimdals.blogspot.com/2012/06/breivik-case-and-use-of-soviet.html">Breivik Case & Use of Soviet Phychiatric Hospitals as Methods for Discrediting Political Ideas</a>:<br />
<br />
Reidar Roll was the Secretary General for the ICDE for 20 years. He writes on his blog at Minervas: Breivik Case and the Use of Soviet Phychiatric Hospitals as Methods for Discrediting Political Ideas that he is not impressed with the Norwegian State Attorney's strategy of focussing on a Political Psychiatry Trial; instead of a Political Terror Treason Trial; which he says is “dangerously close to using Soviet methods to supress political ideas that are seen to be dangerous to the social democratic order in Norway.” </span></blockquote>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJZPj_1SWXWvyLlmRAgy0CECpSqhbfzctqlXhs97tHB4maoYbOMEvkQ9wg8GGeJtrggM9CDTSYcuf0w6P8PMn3xY-0nr91BulyjINw0y0Hspz-SGwc5NgHa1VtgcBwZpc3PRRkdJ8Mrs/s1600/NorwayVBreivik_FleurdeLis_MargaretHagen_556x119.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<blockquote>
<strong><span style="font-size: 120%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Norsk Advokat Foreningen: Disciplinary Complaints: </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 105%;">Kindem & Co, Advokatkollegiet: Trond Erik Aansløkken (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_tea2?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPRFGjR1yNk_b9OCN0S6X6UvaEq3OJE4Ht0EMj8coYxsmLqyASI-xkVrPok2hgzBjEXdT0-fexkwv4EsxvtLw_DckA-szozy2KTxgxlNlCFL0ZFa_KCZuHSqVXQooVUDmH4o-dAnGwZNc/s1600/12-06-17_Trond+Erik+Aanslokken_Kindem+%2526+Co%252C+Advokatkollegiet.png">PoS</a>]<br />
Advokat Øyvind Aakerøy: Øyvind Aakerøy (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_oa?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7I7RVCrF8baa-UwE21S6BXdgc-ZlRfhgx4R5lQROjGPHJJNqj_kSYFFmOR8wJB3LeGMyJEetgGQSR4Rb5878UGSh49nRhjjQQziAMUr3jVVQ_fNqxF9cZjVELH-QJMLRaU7cZg5JBlno/s1600/12-06-17_Oyvind+Aakeroy_Advokat+%25C3%2598yvind+Aaker%25C3%25B8y.png">PoS</a>]<br />
Advokatfirmaet Vogt & Wiig AS: Øyvind Vidhammer (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_ov?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEju65SGNlU_IrXcUomg2wj4HK9cxEt8K5sKmvOOiXTXvstAgU6lBh35A0ScwdaRDydIY68H9fjya72uv30WVWgc44rs0b6uzeJ7M4ig1GYvXvhyphenhyphentA9cCcAUiO7zkXZQCS4Zl74sk6aYT-M/s1600/12-06-17_Oyvind+Vidhammer_Advokatfirmaet+Vogt+%2526+Wiig+AS.png">PoS</a>]<br />
Advokatfirmaet Wold AS: Trude Marie Wold (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_tmw?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGYZp9iVh3gjEa9NQJwSPX_ifIih5VVLG1riSc9EIXOH30GhTsQmGnDaAb4UHwD0QHCVJvSHc1wZX03F8O3DMcmAFa__yTYZCtLwSKdt8XVRpZBqNMyTabnxGWW9phDHBkoQOEzMbyfK8/s1600/12-06-17_Trude+Marie+Wold_Advokatfirmaet+Wold+AS.png">PoS</a>]<br />
Advokatfellesskapet Westby, King & Co: Trude Marie Mohn King (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_tmmk?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfN-84xJEstGGQ4M6aYbxl_XepjNhI8JDcgn5sEBydbgTB4bJiAXNZteA-_a8rkBn_jE0vhMuu7gNGzbhonzrALJ_rNw-x3bABzp_9Nw6QV8QL4k2uoTzsvu94zEwYgapQhwaIubbALmA/s1600/12-06-17_Trude+Marie+Mohn+King_Advokatfellesskapet+Westby%252C+King+%2526+Co.png">PoS</a>]<br />
Advokat Trygve Tveter: Trygve Tveter (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_tt?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9bcWIPGWDbJmzS8SJEHoFWU0TndD1NanK3ryZle1QgjFEdtlW_ay8uZdq9UnOmubl2reb1jIcqNmswmOjHRY-gSPFyGCSIXeKE15ATEbBXEN_GXQOZfiUY248UFGSp6TnSLBWo271BWQ/s1600/12-06-17_Trygve+Tveter_Advokat+Trygve+Tveter.png">PoS</a>]<br />
Advokatfirma Sørskår: Verna Rege Nilssen (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_vrn?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhdJrFMtqR5Njw3yyr8xiRku7SRX2QPPKEXNPjb46koIlrKGfxG92C59kHi1MTRQSAs6Uc4yFqRysrz7wdfryFwwjIpg0RDfobnWzeqPAbTYZnCzmmJMRcrQzZBQtyT2eChTktjPQ-oeI/s1600/12-06-17_Verna+Rege+Nilssen_Advokatfirma+S%25C3%25B8rsk%25C3%25A5r.png">PoS</a>]<br />
Adnor Advokat AS: Vibeke Meland (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_vm?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg19St75wpNUvbMBNQLlF61cFkOpRQjHRzD93Ba_fqW8t-BgttUYJFUlIcqzd5cs0cEOMKp2kk-y_e1nZf797Dl-EaeZEhN4mcrmAxh5Irz_0hHrJ6k4LgjUSFBzCS5KEJblXJ0baE3DLA/s1600/12-06-17_Vibeke+Meland_Adnor+Advokat+AS.png">PoS</a>]<br />
Advokatfellesskapet H M: Zulifqar Munir (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_zm?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWF6Tw3BGyCtlp_q9IteEBQDlOTik7SIYM5B09c9nsEeHljgSH1yUPBsuTgp7N2fByn96y-YLHZvCtnqC_1ChuOg9D-Wx6c8ejusB7XvrK5yoAE-6f7z1hjzvFgtx4m98C6oBEjTlaLgI/s1600/12-06-17_Zulifqar+Munir_Advokatfellesskapet+H+M.png">PoS</a>]</span></strong></blockquote>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Complaint: Violation of: 2.1 (Independence), 2.2 (Honesty), 2.4 (Multiculti Legal Respect) & 4,1 (Rule of Law Conduct) of <a href="http://www.advokatforeningen.no/Etiske-regler/Internasjonale-regler/CCBEs-etiske-regler-norsk/" target="_blank">CCBE Code of Ethics (Norwegian translation)</a>: Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial, to (1) deny Defendant his Political Necessity Treason Trial; and (2) support Corruption of the Court to deny submittal to the Court of Controversial Evidence related to: [1] Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; [2] Norway’s endorsement of Political Psychiatry & Psychiatric Fraud; [3] Masculine Insecurity Human Farming for Profit Kaffir Legal Matrix; [4] Norwegian Goverments Endorsement for ANC’s Terrorism & Breeding War; [5] Norwegian Commitment to Rainbow Race Multiculturism is a Fraud</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">[A] Overview of Complaint: </span></span></strong><br />
<br />
Complainant filed two applications to the Oslo District Court and a subsequent application to the Norway Supreme Court in the Norway v. Breivik matter, wherein Respondent is a legal representative, on behalf of Victims Family/ies in the matter in dispute. Respondent appears to either individually as a legal representative, be petrified of White Supremacy Psycho-Tyranny-Terror, or as part of a collective conspiracy, to be a participant to the obstruction of Justice by Denying the Defendant his Political Necessity Defence Treason Trial. <br />
<br />
A Political Necessity Treason Trial would examine whether the Defendant’s Political Necessity Evidence is beyond reasonable doubt sufficient to justify his innocence; or diminish his guilt. Expert witnesses would be able to be subpoenaed to determine whether his Political Necessity allegations are true or not. <br />
<br />
This StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial Insanity Fishing Expedetion appears to be implying that Norwegian White Supremacy Psychiatry believes that they are God and can decide whether its ‘normal’ for white men to be corporate terrorists, but not violent terrorist Jihadi’s. <br />
<br />
It appears as if the legal participants involved in this matter are involved in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial on the world stage, demonstrating to the world how to rob a Political Dissenter Terrorist of his rule of law right to a Treason Trial. <br />
<br />
<b>Breivik Case & Use of Soviet Phychiatric Hospitals as Methods for Discrediting Political Ideas</b>:<br />
<br />
Reidar Roll was the Secretary General for for the ICDE for 20 years. He writes on his blog at Minervas: <a href="http://heimdals.blogspot.com/2012/06/breivik-case-and-use-of-soviet.html">Breivik Case and the Use of Soviet Phychiatric Hospitals as Methods for Discrediting Political Ideas</a> that he is not impressed with the Norwegian State Attorney's strategy of focussing on a Political Psychiatry Trial; instead of a Political Terror Treason Trial; which he says is “dangerously close to using Soviet methods to supress political ideas that are seen to be dangerous to the social democratic order in Norway.”<br />
<blockquote>
“It is time to review the performance of the prosecution. They have failed to understand or admit that they are dealing with a political case, and not a case of insanity.”<br />
<br />
“Breivil attacked the Norwegian Labour Party, blaming them for destroying Norway by permtting unchecked muslim immigration. A huge number of Norwegians share that opinion.”<br />
<br />
“From the very beginning the prosecution had to understand that they deal with a political terror attack on the Labour party. Not on Norway. On the Labour Party. The distinction seems to be important to understand.”<br />
<br />
The prosecution have spent an amazing amount of time trying to assert that Breivik’s Knights Templar network does not exist. The Knights Templar were an order who, during the Crusades fought against the muslims. The political symbolism for Breivik in that name is rather clear, also that he engages in political propaganda.<br />
<br />
Mr Breivik’s political fight is likely to continue from jail. He will want to see such networks as the Knights Templar develop, prosper, and take action against the immigration of Islam into Europe through violence. These ideas will not go away by forcing mental illness on the ideas. which is what the prosecution seems to be doing. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
Soviet psychiatric hospitals known as "psikhushkas" were used by the Soviet authorities as prisons in order to isolate hundreds or thousands of political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally. <br />
<br />
The Norwegian state attorney strategy does not impress us. They are dangerously close to using Soviet methods to supress political ideas that are seen to be dangerous to the social democratic order in Norway.</blockquote>
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">[B] Chronology of Facts</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<b>30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court: Habeus Mentem:</b><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
[1] On 30 November 2011, complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2011/12/oslo-district-court-norway-v-breivik.html" target="_blank">filed an Application to the Oslo District Court</a>: Application for a [I] writ of Habeus Mentem on behalf of Anders Breivik psycho-cultural integrity right to a free and fair trial; and [II] writ of Certiorari/Review of the Psychiatric Evaluation Report of Psychiatrists: Synne Serheim and Torgeir Husby as to the Mens Rea political necessity criminal liability of Anders Breivik terrorist acts, on 22 July 2011. (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/111130_breivik-habeus?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage" target="_blank">PDF</a>)<br />
<br />
[2] On 15 December 2012 complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2011/12/notice-to-oslo-court-request-date-judge.html" target="_blank">informed the court</a> that: “Please could you confirm: (1) The date my application is to be submitted to Judge Opsahl, or the relevant Judge, for their consideration. (2) The date the said Judge intends to provide me with their ruling on the matter.” <br />
<br />
[3] There has been no response from the Clerk of the Court. I imagine that the Judge has ordered the Clerk to ignore the application. Refusal to respond to an application implies that the application is being denied, and that the applicant is unworthy of a transparent due process response . A complaint has been filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges.<br />
<br />
[4] Respondent’s silence on the matter is a violation of their CCBE Ethical Duties to the court and all applicants to courts in all court disputes. </blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<b>15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court: Amicus Curiae:</b><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
[1] On 15 April 2012, Complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/no-v-breivik-ecofeminist-application-to.html" target="_blank">filed an Application to the Oslo District Court</a>: Application to proceed as In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amicus Curiae for an Order (1) to approve the Applicant as an In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amici Curiae, and (2) Amending the Charges Against the Defendant and Applicant to include Treason in terms of Article 85 of Norwegian Constitution, and if found guilty, in a free and fair trial; to be executed by firing squad. The application requested the Prosecution and Defence to respond by 23 April 2012 either consenting to, or objecting to, the application. (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120414_amicus?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage" target="_blank">PDF</a>)<br />
<br />
[2] On 26 April 2012, Complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/update-ecofeminist-applic-to-oslo-court.html" target="_blank">informed the court that</a>: “There has been no response from the Prosecution and Defence either consenting to, or objecting to, my application to proceed as an Amicus. Please could you confirm: (1) The date my application is to be submitted to Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, or the relevant Judge, for her/their consideration. (2) The date the said Judge intends to provide me with their ruling approving or denying my application.” <br />
<br />
[3] There has been no response from the Clerk of the Court. I imagine that the Judge has ordered the Clerk to ignore the application. Refusal to respond to an application implies that the application is being denied, and that the applicant is unworthy of a transparent due process response . A complaint has been filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges.<br />
<br />
[4] If approved, the Applicants Amicus written submissions would (a) address alternative legal arguments to those of both the Prosecution and Defense, i.e. from a Problem Solving Radical Transparency EcoFeminists perspective as opposed to the Prosecution & Defense’s Parasite Leeching Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal perspectives; (b) ‘argue points deemed too far reaching for emphasis by parties intent on winning their particular Parasite Leeching Masculine Insecurity case’ ; (c) ‘apprise the court of Problem Solving Radical Transparency EcoFeminists legal, social, economic, ecological and cultural enquiry implications for its consideration’ to allow the court to base its decision on a larger, more comprehensive, and more accurate reality based natural law legal framework; (d) provide the court with hard evidence of (I) non-violent Jus Sanguinis African White Refugee applications filed to European Heads of State for France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom and NATO Military Committee; providing evidentiary arguments for support for a Boer Volkstaat; or Jus Sanguinis Right of Return to Europe for African White Refugees; (II) how former and current UNHCR, ECRE and ELENA Officials <a href="http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/search/label/*%20ECRE-ELENA%3A%20Anti-White%20Refugee%20Bias" target="_blank">deliberately wish to censor the issue of African White Refugees from public scrutiny and knowledge</a>; so that the court’s final judgment shall include a Problem Solving Radical Transparency EcoFeminists legal analysis .<br />
<br />
[5] Respondents silence on the matter is a violation of their CCBE Ethical Duties to the court and all applicants to courts in all court disputes. </blockquote>
<br />
<b>10 May 2012 Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review & Declaratory Orders:</b><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
[1] On 10 May 2012, Complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/ecofeminists-deep-green-ecology.html" target="_blank">filed an Application to the Norway Suprem Court</a>: Application (1) to be admitted as a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee; (2) for An Order demanding the Norwegian Ministry of Culture to act in accordance to European Court of Human Rights ruling in Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom, and clarify in adequately accessible and sufficiently precise statement; whether Norway is (A) a ‘Children of the Rainbow’ State legally committed to Multiculturalism, providing all cultures their right to invoke cultural law and hence granting the Applicant her rights to invoke Radical Honoursty cultural law; or (B) a Monocultural Indigenous European Supremacy Legal Hegemonic State, and that the Labour Party Immigration policy is a tactic to maintain their grip on power, by importing Non-Western immigrants as Labour Party vote-fodder; (3) to Review the Oslo District Court failure to act in accordance of due process to a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee Applicant member of the Radical Honesty culture. (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120510_nsc-rev?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage" target="_blank">PDF</a>)<br />
<br />
[2] On 11 May 2012 complainant requested from Norway Supreme Court Officials: Mr. Svein Andersen / Mr. Kjersti Ruud: “Could you kindly clarify when the Registrar shall issue a Case Number; or whether you require additional documentation or information?” <br />
<br />
[3] On 15 May 2012, Kjersti Buun Nygaard <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/no-supreme-crt-dep-sec-gen-kjersti-buun.html" target="_blank">responded with</a>: “Reference is made to your e-mails regarding the above issue. Please be advised that the Supreme Court of Norway only handles appeals against judgments given by the lower courts and can consequently not deal with the issue mentioned in your e-mails. Further inquiries from you regarding the above issue can not be expected to be answered.”<br />
<br />
[4] On 15 May 2012, complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/no-supreme-crt-dep-sec-gen-kjersti-buun.html" target="_blank">responded with</a>: (I) Error in Supreme Court: Deputy Secretary General: Kjersti Buun Nygaard Response to SHARP Application to Supreme Court for Declaratory Orders and Review of Oslo District Court’s Decisions; (II) Notice of Commencement of Hungerstrike in absence of Supreme Court Case number by 17:00 on 22 May 2012.<br />
<br />
[5] On 17 May 2012, complainant filed an <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/16-may-ecofeminist-death-battalion.html" target="_blank">Environmental Crime Complaint to Interpol, via Norway Police</a>; Charges: Obstruction of Environmental & Indigenous Rights Justice Committed by Chief Justice Tore Schei & Dep. Sec. Gen: Kjersti Nygaard<br />
<br />
[6] There has been no response from any Supreme Court official. A complaint has been filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges.<br />
<br />
[7] Respondents silence on the matter is a violation of their CCBE Ethical Duties to the court and all applicants to courts in all court disputes. </blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">[C] Controversial Arguments in Complainants Applications</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle<br />
<br />
“There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world.” – Thomas Jefferson</blockquote>
<br />
Controversial issues include (1) the <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/pm-stoltenberg-and-1676-no-gov.html" target="_blank">political</a> and <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/482-norwegian-lawyers-law-professors.html" target="_blank">legal</a> elite’s paranoia to confront the Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (2) Norways political, academic and legal elites paranoia to confront Norways endorsement of Political Psychiatry; and (3) Western civilisation’s Masculine Insecurity Human Farming - for <a href="http://www.teachpeace.com/Report_from_Iron_Mountain.pdf" target="_blank">Iron Mountain</a> <a href="http://warisaracket.org/dedication.html" target="_blank">‘War is a Racket</a> profit - Kaffir Legal Matrix [MIC’S WAR IS PEACE WHORE: how Norway’s ‘War is Peace’ Nobel Institute is the favourite War is Peace Whore for the International Iron Mountain ‘War is a Racket profit - Kaffir Legal Matrix Military Industrical Complex (MIC)]. <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #0a1696;">[1] Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection: </span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<br /></blockquote>
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/breivik-acquittal-or-firing-squad-if-it.html"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgFfl1FXsncT6EqKyf1QSan88xGkxprbAU2DS2lPK5zpo7kSf0nCRYzWVKEE5Z3djRdGmzxs8_wGrZAi6S-QEHmvPnOBX3w90LMnzYCZtMsHQgtTk1lBuGxb7crtTNCjiflHGMp-GW1ao/s1600/IfItBleedsItLeads_MRKerbel.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 300px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 195px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote>
<b>30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court: Habeus Mentem: Affidavit:</b><br />
<br />
[36](3) Written Statement of Consent by T. Michael Maher, Ph.D, to testify as expert witness for <i><b>How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection and Media Framing and Salience of the Population Issue</b></i> (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100522_cct2310_affid-dr-t-m-maher?mode=a_p" target="_blank">PDF</a>) and <i><b>Study: How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection</b></i> (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection?mode=a_p" target="_blank">PDF</a>)<br />
<br />
[63] While he does not share the political-cultural beliefs of Che Guevarra, Jaan Laaman, Tom Manning, Marilyn Buck, Carlos the Jackal, Nelson Mandela, Robert McBride, etc (left wing terrorists: none of whom were considered by conservative prosecutors to require psychological evaluation, but who were allowed their day in court to take personal and political responsibility for their politically violent criminal acts); I imagine they may find themselves in agreement as to how Mainstream Access-to-Discourse Gatekeeper editors censorship contributed to their decision-making to resort to political necessity violence. <br />
<br />
[64] Excerpt: <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100718_rhwr-concourt-amicus?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage" target="_blank">Amicus Curiae to SA Constitutional Court (CCT 23-10)</a>: Mainstream Access-to-Discourse-Gatekeeper Editors censorship of nonviolent political grievances and problem solving activism facilitate a pressure cooker socio-political reality for their ‘If it Bleads, it Leads’ corporate propaganda profits, in knowledge application of: <br />
<br />
1. ‘As long as there is some possibility of getting results by political means, the chances that any political group or individual will turn violent are truly radically small, or maybe vanishingly small’; <br />
<br />
2. ‘The exposure in the media is what gets people’s attention. People follow what is happening in the news, not what is happening in the courts’; <br />
<br />
3. ‘[Editors] abuse of media power, by means of strategies whereby they abuse public discourse/free speech resources; by providing certain parties with preferential and special access to such public discourse, and severely restricting or denying others any access to such public discourse; <br />
<br />
4. Mainstream media avoid addressing or enquiring into root causes of problems as reported in <i><b><a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection?mode=a_p" target="_blank">How and Why Journalists Avoid Population – Environment connection</a></b></i>; and censor non-violent root-cause problem solving activism.<br />
<br />
<b>10 May 2012 Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review & Declaratory Orders:</b><br />
<br />
[4] Applicant: Radical Honoursty Transparency Political Necessity EcoFeminist Terrorist:<br />
<br />
[5] I have political motivated criminal convictions for: Terrorism: On 18 June 2002 (Phi Day and President Mbeki’s 60th birthday) I made a bomb threat to the P.W. Botha International airport in George and then turned myself into the Police, based upon the political necessity of exposing SA’s Truth and Reconciliation Fraud (particularly the relationship between overpopulation and terrorism and the media’s coverup of overpopulation-environment-terrorism connections). I was sentenced to two years correctional supervision.<br />
<br />
[6] The applicant has filed the following non-violent applications to request South African and other International Authorities support her minority right to public discourse on the matter of (a) the importance of a Deep Ecology Sustainability Bill of Rights and worldview; (b) Population/Demographic Masculine Insecurity Breeding War roots of Political and Resource war violence, including Apartheid Violence; (c) the relationship between Media Censorship of Overpopulation and it’s Resource War and Terrorism consequences, (d) Jus Sanguinis European Indigenous Citizenship for African White Refugees, (e) equitable recognition of the Radical Honoursty culture, (f) South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation (TRC) Fraud’s African White Refugee consequences<br />
<br />
[33] <b>If It Bleeds, It Leads Media’s Population–Terror Connection Masculine Insecurity</b>:<br />
<br />
"[Breivik] emphasizes that if he had not been censored by the media all his life, he would not have had to do what he did. He believes the media have the main responsibility for what has happened because they did not publish his opinions.... The low-intensity civil war that he had already described, had lasted until now with ideological struggle and censorship of cultural conservatives...... He explains that this is the worst day of his life and that he has dreaded this for 2 years. He has been censored for years. He mentions Dagbladet and Aftenposten as those who among other things have censored him..... He says that he also wrote “essays” that he tried to publish via the usual channels, but that they were all censored..... The subject summarizes: As long as more than twelve were executed, the operation will still be a success. The experts ask how the number twelve comes into consideration. Twelve dead are needed to penetrate the censorship wall, he explains..... About his thoughts on the Utøya killings now, the subject says: The goal was to execute as many as possible. At least 30. It was horrible, but the number had to be assessed based on the global censorship limit. Utøya was a martyrdom, and I am very proud of it..... The subject says in the conversation that he knows the truth that is hidden from others. He believes that there is a civil war in the country. He believes he had to kill at least twelve, because there is a censorship-wall preventing an open debate about what is happening in the country..... So I knew I had to cross a certain threshold to exceed the censorship-wall of the international media." -- <i><b>Oslo Organized Crime Police Investigation Report: "Explanation of 22 July 2011</b></i>, doc 08,01"<br />
<br />
[34] On 22 April 2012 (Earth Day), Applicant distributed the “<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/breivik-acquittal-or-firing-squad-if-it.html" target="_blank">Acquittal or Firing Squad :: If It Bleeds, It Leads :: Media’s Population – Terrorism Connection Report</a>”</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<br />
It provides Scientific Journalism studies about Media Censorship in the matter of Norway v. Breivik, detailing Media Masculine (Transparency) Insecurity surrounding the ‘Better an Honest Enemy; than a False Friend’ events of support for a free and fair trial for Breivik from a Pasthtun Pakistani and a Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist (Applicant).<br />
<br />
The Report detailed how the Media’s Anders Breivik Narrative appears to be:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A. * Breivik is legally insane<br />
B. * His ‘If It Bleads, It Leads’ justification for Terrorism is Unjustified </blockquote>
<br />
However the Media Censored information such as: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
C. * Whores of the Court Myth of Mental Illness: Insanity is to PharmaPsychiatry what Heresy was to the Inquisition<br />
D. * Media’s If It Bleads, It Leads Population-Terrorism Connection </blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #0a1696;">[2] Norway’s endorsement of Political Psychiatry and Psychiatric Fraud</span></span></strong><br />
<br /></blockquote>
<a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg662oH3IML7mIvuyp8Xnpv8ww1MDa1SUHCw0-vY9n4WfFpvfpTTsvwsbmMvxaJ0GSHHRwBZIbJ0cL2B8Hqz4vc1bvoKGOiiswGCa1Ez3EINXNliqtL3RJ5z8C-n3yTX6xWG7kcUK-pufs/s1600/LucyJohnstone_Users-Abusers-Psychiatry_DSM_331x588.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 588px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 331px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote>
<b>30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court: Habeus Mentem: Affidavit:</b><br />
<br />
[72] It would appear to me that any psychiatrist who considered themselves to be a fundamentalist politically correct cultural Marxist multi-culturalist as well as honourable democrat, should honourably recuse themselves from an enquiry into Mr. Breivik’s alleged sanity, based upon their predisposition to be biased towards his actions. <br />
<br />
[73] The absence of doing so, only proves Mr. Breivik’s actions to have been fully justified, and his charges to be accurate regarding the bias and lack of commitment to democratic values open transparent discourse practiced by fundamentalist politically correct cultural Marxist multi-culturalists. <br />
<br />
[76-77] ARGUMENT: Breivik clearly and very ‘reasonably’ explains his Political Necessity Motivations for his Political Terrorist acts:<br />
<br />
[78-80] ARGUMENT: Breivik clearly details his beliefs that hardcore Marxists, cultural Marxists Multiculturalists are deceiving indigenous Europeans, by implementing a demographic conquering Breeding War Act of War upon them. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<br />
<b>April 15, 2012 Application to Oslo District Court: Amicus Curiae: Affidavit:</b><br />
<br />
[26] <b>HABEUS MENTEM :: THE RIGHT TO LEGAL SANITY </b><br />
<br />
In Aldous Huxley’s <i><b>A Brave New World Revisited</b></i> he describes the insidious conspiracy to manipulate the masses by propaganda and lies, so as to make them controllable under the “steadily increasing pressures of over-population and of the over-organization imposed by growing numbers and advancing technology”:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It is perfectly possible for a man to be out of prison, and yet not free -- to be under no physical constraint and yet to be a psychological captive, compelled to think, feel and act as the representatives of the national State, or of some private interest within the nation, want him to think, feel and act. There will never be such a thing as a writ of habeas mentem; for no sheriff or jailer can bring an illegally imprisoned mind into court, and no person whose mind had been made captive by the methods outlined in earlier articles would be in a position to complain of his captivity. The nature of psychological compulsion is such that those who act under constraint remain under the impression that they are acting on their own initiative. The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him, the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. That he is not free is apparent only to other people. His servitude is strictly objective.</blockquote>
The problem – of course – for those who partake in this insidious conspiracy is that ultimately the propagandists begin to believe their own propaganda.<br />
<br />
[27] <b>Marketing of Madness: The Myth of Mental Illness Experts</b> (21:04) <br />
<br />
‘There is no such thing as mental illness. Psychiatric diagnosis of ‘mental disorders’ is just a way of stigmatising behaviour that society does not want to live with. Psychiatry thrives on coercion and is replacing religion as a form of social control.’ - Dr. Thomas Szasz<br />
<br />
“Biological psychology/psychiatry is a total perversion of medicine and science, and a fraud.” - Neurologist Fred Baughman, <i><b>The ADHD Fraud: How Psychiatry Makes "Patients" of Normal Children</b></i>.<br />
<br />
“Going to a psychiatrist has become one of the most dangerous things a person can do.” - Peter Breggin, MD; <i><b>Toxic Psychiatry.</b></i><br />
<br />
“There is no such thing as a mental disorder. A mental disorder is whatever someone says it is, and if the person saying "This is a mental disorder", has enough power and influence, then people believe 'Oh, that is a mental disorder'.” - Dr. Paula Caplan, Harvard <br />
<br />
“The entire enterprise of defining mental disorder is pointless, at least in so far as the goal is to allow us to recognize ‘genuine’ or ‘true’ disorders” - Dr. Mary Boyle, <i><b>Schizophrenia: A Scientific Delusion?</b></i><br />
<br />
“DSM is a book of tentatively assembled agreements. Agreements don’t always make sense, nor do they always reflect reality. You can have agreements among experts without validity. Even if you could find four people who agreed that the earth is flat, that the moon is made of green cheese, that smoking cigarettes poses no health risks, or that politicians are never corrupt, such agreements do not establish truth.” – Herb Kutchins and Stuart Kirk: <i><b>Making us Crazy: DSM: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental Disorders </b></i><br />
<br />
“To admit the central role of value judgments and cultural norms [in the creation of the DSM] is to give the whole game away. The DSM has to be seen as reliable and valid, or the whole enterprise of medical psychiatry collapses.” -- Lucy Johnstone, <i><b>The Users and Abusers of Psychiatry</b></i><br />
<br />
“[Alleged Mental Disorders] are based on a grab-bag of checklists for disorders that are published in a book called the DSM; which is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. There are no statistics in this book, by the way. That just makes it sound more scientific.” -- Dr Margaret Hagen, Professor of Psychology, Boston University, <i><b>Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice</b></i>.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice</b></i>, Margaret A. Hagen, Ph.D | <i><b>The Second Sin</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>Coercion as Cure: A Critical History of Psychiatry</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>Insanity: The Idea and its Consequences</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>Law, Liberty and Psychiatry</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>A Lexicon of Lunacy: Metaphoric Malady, Moral Responsibility and Psychiatry</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>Liberation by Oppression: A Comparative Study of Slavery and Psychiatry</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>The Age of Madness: The history of Involuntary Mental Hospitalization</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>The Myth of Psychotherapy</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>Psychiatry: The Science of Lies</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>The Therapeutic State: Psychiatry in the Mirror of Current Events</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>The ADHD Fraud: How Psychiatry Makes "Patients" of Normal Children</b></i>, Fred A. Bauchmann, Jr, MD | <i><b>Toxic Psychiatry</b></i>, Peter Breggin, MD | <i><b>They Say You're Crazy: How the Worlds Most Powerful Psychiatrists Decide Who's Normal</b></i>, Paula J. Caplan Ph.D | <i><b>Schizophrenia: A Scientific Delusion</b></i>, Mary Boyle | <i><b>Making us Crazy: DSM: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental Disorders</b></i>, Herb Kutchins & Stuart A Kirk | <i><b>Users and Abusers of Psychiatry: A Critical Look at Traditional Psychiatric Practice</b></i>, Lucy Johnstone<br />
<br />
[28] <b>NORWAYS HISTORY OF POLITICAL PSYCHIATRY</b><br />
<br />
An analysis by SINTEF (research organisation) in 1996, showed that about 45 percent of all psychiatric hospitalisations in Norwegian psychiatric clinics, are coercive. In other EU countries coercive institutionalization is between 5-15 percent. -- Fampo, Norway <a href="http://www.fampo.info/">www.fampo.info</a><br />
<br />
<b>Knut Hamsen</b>: Author, winner of Nobel Prize in Literature in 1920: <i><b>The Growth of the Soil</b></i>. Charged with treason for his writings in support of Hitler, but then declared to be mentally impaired by psychiatrists to avoid Norway giving him a treason trial. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<br />
<b>Arnold Juklerod</b>: Institutionalized at Gaustad in 1971, as “paranoid schizophrenic,” after exposing corruption in the Education Dept. His alleged “unchangeable paranoid false ideas” were subsequently proven true, but Norwegian psychiatrists refused to delete his ‘paranoid schizophrenia’ diagnosis. <br />
<br />
<b>Synnove Fjellbakk Tafto</b>: A diplomat and jurist was labelled mentally ill and institutionalized after exposing massive corruption in the Norwegian Foreign Service. Author: Skjoldmoysagaen.<br />
<br />
<b>Kare Torvholm & Oddmar Remoy</b>: Dr. Bjorn Martin Aasen, justified their institutionalization because: "he belongs to a civil network with both local, national, & international connections, which purpose is to disclose criminal things...; which fulfills their mental disorder requirements'...<br />
<br />
<b>Anders Breivik</b>: Does Breivik's 22/7 acts expose the corruption of Norway's Immigration policies? Is Breivik qualified to fulfil Norways mental disorder requirements? Does Breivik “belong to a civil network with both local, national, & international connections, with the purpose to disclose criminal things”?<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>10 May 2012 Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review & Declaratory Orders:</b><br />
<br />
[34] On 22 April 2012 (Earth Day), Applicant distributed the “<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/breivik-acquittal-or-firing-squad-if-it.html" target="_blank">Acquittal or Firing Squad :: If It Bleeds, It Leads :: Media’s Population – Terrorism Connection Report</a>”</blockquote>
<blockquote>
It provides Scientific Journalism studies about Media Censorship in the matter of Norway v. Breivik, detailing Media Masculine (Transparency) Insecurity surrounding the ‘Better an Honest Enemy; than a False Friend’ events of support for a free and fair trial for Breivik from a Pasthtun Pakistani and a Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist (Applicant).<br />
<br />
The Report detailed how the Media’s Anders Breivik Narrative appears to be:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
E. * Breivik is legally insane<br />
F. * His ‘If It Bleads, It Leads’ justification for Terrorism is Unjustified </blockquote>
<br />
However the Media Censored information such as: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
G. * Whores of the Court Myth of Mental Illness: Insanity is to PharmaPsychiatry what Heresy was to the Inquisition<br />
H. * Media’s If It Bleads, It Leads Population-Terrorism Connection </blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #0a1696;">[3] Masculine Insecurity Human Farming for Profit Kaffir Legal Matrix:</span></span></strong><br />
<br /></blockquote>
<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" style="width: 350px;"><tbody>
<tr><td width="350"><div align="center">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="255" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Xbp6umQT58A" width="350"></iframe><strong><span style="font-size: 80%;"><span style="color: #0a1696;">Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement (<a href="http://youtu.be/Xbp6umQT58A">13:10</a>)</span></span></strong></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<blockquote>
<b>30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court: Habeus Mentem: Affidavit:</b><br />
<br />
[29] <b>MASCULINE (REASON & LOGIC) INSECURITY PARASITE LEECHING LEADERSHIP (SIC)</b> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
The male does not <i>have</i> an erection, like a property or a permanent quality (although how many men wish to <i>have</i> one is anybody’s guess). The penis is in a state of erection, as long as the man is in a state of excitement. If for one reason or another something interferes with this excitement, the man has nothing. And in contrast to practically all other kinds of behaviour, the erection cannot be faked. George Groddek, one of the most outstanding, although unknown, psychoanalysts, used to comment that a man, after all, is a man for only a few minutes; most of the time he is a little boy. Of course, man does not become a little boy in his total being, but precisely in that aspect which for many a man is the proof that he is a man. It is not, then, surprising that the anxieties of men and women refer to different spheres; the man's concerning his ego, his prestige, his value in the eyes of the woman….” – <i><b>Sex & Character</b></i>, Erich Fromm<br />
<br />
[30] Masculine Insecurity is not necessarily a masculine phenomena: <br />
<br />
[31] I refer to the concept of ‘Logic and Reason Insecurity’ as ‘masculine insecurity’ because the majority of the worlds cultures have and continue to be patriarchal, the drivers of those cultures were men; (2) The concepts of ‘reason’ and ‘logic’ have been, and are described as masculine strengths, whereas emotion and intuition are ‘feminine’ strengths. <br />
<br />
Robert McElvaine: In <i><b><a href="http://www.fotim.ac.za/fotim_conferences/genderconf/papers/mcelvaine_paper.pdf" target="_blank">Eve’s Seed: Masculine Insecurity, Metaphor, and the Shaping of History</a></b></i>, and <i><b>Eve’s Seed: Biology, the Sexes and the Course of History</b></i>, McElvaine described it thus: </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Karl Marx had it wrong. Class has, to be sure, been a major factor in history; but class itself is a derivative concept that is based on the ultimate causative power in history: sex. Marx’s famous formulation must be revised: The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of struggles based on the division of our species into two sexes, jealousies emanating from this division, exaggerations of the differences between the sexes, misunderstandings about sexual reproductive power, and metaphors derived from sex. Together, these closely related matters constitute the most important, but largely neglected, set of motive forces in human history. Control -- or the claim of control -- over the means of <b>reproduction</b> has been even more fundamental to history than has control of the means of <b>production</b>. ..<br />
<br />
[..] Sexually insecure men often seek validation of their manhood by pursuing power. This is one of the reasons that the notawoman definition of manhood has had such an impact throughout history. All men do not suffer from such sexual insecurity, but those who do have frequently made their way into positions of power and so have had a disproportionate influence on the shaping of cultures and institutions…<br />
<br />
[..] The real importance of insecure masculinity, again, is that those men who suffer from it are most apt to seek power in order to compensate for their self doubts. Sexually linked motivations have been evident in men engaging in war since the earliest times.</blockquote>
<br />
Masculine Insecure Parasite Leeching Feminism is even more psychologically, intellectually and culturally insecure than its patriarchal counterpart; whereas Masculine Security/Radical Transparency Masculinity is best exemplified by Ray Dalio (Blackwater Associates) and Brad Blanton (Radical Honesty) and Masculine Secure Feminism would probably be best exemplified by Mimi Silbert (Delancey Street Foundation) and in an actual Matriarchy, I would imagine the Mosuo in South West China, and many pre-Industrial Aryan societies – cultural paradigms which are and were focussed on logic, reason and living in harmony with nature and resolving grievances publicly, as opposed to by fake public relations, would be good examples. <br />
<br />
[32] <b>Masculine Insecurity Obstructs Radical Transparency Communication Problem Solving</b>.<br />
<br />
Masculine Insecurity is the opposite of Radical Transparency: It is the psychological and intellectual inability to constructively and sincerely listen and engage in a search for the truth, with individuals whom you may disagree with. A desire to silence and ignore ideas which threaten the insecure masculine identity. Radical Transparency demands non-hierarchical recognition of all criticism and ideas and criticism are judged on their merit , not the individuals socio-political status, because its ultimate focus is Problem Solving . Masculine Insecurity (the opposite of Radical Transparency) only addresses criticism from those who are deemed socio-political peers; and if so, the discussion of the criticism is always discussed within the approved ‘masculine insecurity’ worldview parasite leeching ‘<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMPAfDHEFbQ" target="_blank">Left Wing vs. Right Wing Political Control’ paradigm</a> . The goal of the criticism is not problem solving or to resolve a damaged relationship, but simply propaganda warfare in the battle for Bullshitting the Public to garner more psychological, intellectual or political slaves and cannon fodder for the Left or Right Wing Parasite Leeching ‘Leader’ (sic).<br />
<br />
It is not feminism that is the source of Western Civilisation’s destruction, but Masculine Insecurity (whether patriarchal or feminist is irrelevant). Masculine Insecurity is the root psychological and intellectual problem that obstructs Western civilisation from confronting the Parasite Leeching Economic, Intellectual and Psychological Paradigm that is the source of its impending ecological destruction, by means of overpopulation (third world immigration) and overconsumption (<a href="http://www.jasonbrent.weebly.com/" target="_blank">Peak Oil</a> and <a href="http://www.nnrscarcity.com/" target="_blank">Peak Non Renewable Natural Resources</a>). <br />
<br />
[33] Masculine Insecurity is the cognitive foundation of the anti-Meritocratic Parasite Leeching Leadership (sic) paradigm. It is the Root Cause of Overpopulation and Overconsumption: It Propagandizes on behalf of an exponential growth of Parasite Leeching -- ‘walking penis procreation’ overpopulation and ‘<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9167657690296627941" target="_blank">consume to demonstrate the size of my consumption penis</a>’ overconsumption -- worldview.<br />
<br />
[36] Former Judge Jason G. Brent, <i><b><a href="http://www.jasonbrent.weebly.com/" target="_blank">Humans: An Endangered Species</a></b></i>: “We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc.; you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population, an ACT OF WAR.”<br />
<br />
[37] It is self-evident that humans live on a planet with finite resources, and that resource scarcity is a major source of conflict. Hence to reduce conflict and to save resources that are vital to industrial civilisation would require earthly beings to control population growth and conserve vital resources for future generations. However the exact opposite has occurred. The worlds most valuable form of energy: oil has been squandered on predominantly ‘shitty’ products, and vital non-renewable natural resources upon which industrial civilisation relies upon, have been mined by world leaders drunk on masculine insecurity, pissing the planets resources away to figuratively <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9167657690296627941" target="_blank">extend the size of their penises</a>! <br />
<br />
[38] <b>Masculine Insecurity’s Greatest Weapon: Parasite Leech’s Brood Sows ‘wombs’</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b>Houari Boumediene, President of Algeria, at the United Nations, 1974</b>: “The wombs of our women will give us victory.” [“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” (Boumediene was an ardent supporter of the ANC and SWAPO)]<br />
<br />
<b>Yasser Arafat: Palestinian Womb is his people’s greatest asset</b> [Arnon Soffer, a geography professor at Israel's Haifa University and a lecturer at the Israeli Army's Staff and Command college, first warned of the impending Jewish demographic minority in the 1980s, but was widely dismissed. He predicted Arabs would outnumber Jews in both Israel proper and the occupied territories by 2010. In February 2001, the night of his election, Sharon sent an aide to ask Soffer for a copy of his 1987 treatise about the demographic threat to Israel; it was the same study that had led Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to declare in the late 1980s that the "Palestinian womb" was his people's greatest weapon.]<br />
<br />
<b>Nelson Mandela’s ANC: ANC ‘Operation Production’ Policy:</b> African women forced (I) to have sex with ANC cadres, & (2) not allowed to use contraception. Contravention meant detention, 'Apartheid agent' People’s Court trial & sentence of Necklacing, incl. broken bottles shoved up their vagina. [Johannes Harnischfeger, <i><b><a href="http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2009/12/ancs-embrace-of-occult-politics.html" target="_blank">Witchcraft and the State in South Africa</a></b></i> (*German version of published in Anthropopos, 95/ 2000, S. 99-112): “Especially evening assemblies girls had to attend as well: “They would come into the house and tell us we should go. They didn't ask your mother they just said ‘come let's go.’ You would just have to go with them. They would threaten you with their belts and ultimately you would think that if you refused, they would beat you. Our parents were afraid of them” (quoted by Delius 1996:189). All those opposing the wishes of the young men were reminded, that it was every woman’s obligation to give birth to new “soldiers”, in order to replace those warriors killed in the liberation struggle. The idiom of the adolescents referred to these patriotic efforts as “operation production”. Because of exactly this reason it was forbidden for the girls to use contraceptives. (Delius 1996:189; Niehaus 1999:250)”]<br />
<br />
<b>New Black Panther Party: Dr. Khalid Muhammad</b>: Kill the White Woman as the White Man’s Military Manufacturing Center rolling out reinforcement from between her legs: In Dr. Khalid Abdul Muhammad’s 1993 <a href="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/456363/khallid_muhammads_speech_kill_the_white_man/" target="_blank">'Kill the White Man' speech</a>, at Kean College in Union Township, New Jersey, he stated among others: “Kill the women cause the women are the military manufacturing center; cause every nine months they lay down on their backs and reinforcement rolls out from between their legs. So shut down the military manufacturing center, by killing the white woman.”<br />
<br />
[65] Unfortunately, the root source of this ‘terrorism‘ in my personal opinion, lies in the corruption of the legal system, more specifically in what I refer to as KAFFIR CULTURE, LAWYERS AND LEGISLATION: the KAFFIR LEGAL MATRIX. We live in a legal matrix that has not incorporated the scientific reality into its ‘right to breed‘ legislation, constitutions, bill of rights and responsibilities or treaties, that the earth is flat, resources are finite, and breeding wars should be acknowledged as ACTS OF WAR. Unlike the corrupt Catholic Church who at least had the honour to acknowledge the criticisms of Galileo and Luther, the current corrupt legal religious matrix sale of innocence indulgences establishment, have no such honourable intentions. In the absence of dead and mangled bodies, blood and gore, any modern day Luther or Galileo‘s 95 Theses would never see the light of day; and frequently even if the Luther or Galileo accomplish the dead and mangled bodies prerequisite, the Kaffir Legal Matrix‘s political psychology denies them their day in court.<br />
<br />
<b>[66] Excerpt from Complaint to International Criminal Court (PDF):</b><br />
<br />
<b>[d] Radical Honesty SA definitions of the word „Kaffir‟, relevant to this matter</b>:<br />
<br />
[i] <b>‘Kaffir Behaviour’: Cultural Beliefs and Procreation Behaviour Definition</b>: Individuals who either independently or as a result of their cultural value systems, are incapable of, or unwilling to, practice sexual restraint and procreation responsibility; who consequently breed cockroach-prolifically without personal financial or psychological responsibility to, or emotional concern for, their offspring; and/or who abuse women and children as sexual or economic slaves procreated for such purpose; and/or whose cultural ideal of manhood endorses non-consensual sex (rape) as their sexual slavery entitlement, etc.<br />
<br />
[ii] <b>‘Kaffir Etymology’</b>: Original Etymological Definition for “Kaffir”: The word kāfir is the active participle of the Semitic root K-F-R “to cover”. As a pre-Islamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting; as they till the earth and “cover up” the seeds; which is why earth tillers are referred to as “Kuffar.” Thus, the word kāfir implies the meaning “a person who hides or covers”; To conceal, deny, hide or cover the truth.<br />
<br />
[iii] <b>‘Kaffir Legislation’ = Inalienable Right to Breed Poverty, Misery and War legislation; pretending it advocates for “peace and human rights”</b>. Kaffir Law/Legislation provides citizens with the Inalienable ‗Right to Breed‘ [and 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, etc, etc. Kaffir Legislation covers up that an ‗Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control policy + <a href="http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_from_shortage_to_longage.html" target="_blank">No Social Welfare policies or practices provides for an equilibrium carrying capacity; whereas Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control within a welfare state, results in Runaway Growth, and ultimately greater misery, poverty and war</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court: Amicus Curiae: Affidavit:</b><br />
<br />
[3](4) My Guerrilla Lawfare Worldview: The Paradox of the Masculine Insecurity <a href="http://youtu.be/gHAnrXCvavc" target="_blank">Human Farming</a> Kaffir Matrix Court: Radical Transparency Problem Solving is to the Masculine Insecurity Kaffir Matrix Court; what Martin Luther or Galileo Galilei were to the Catholic Church. 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, etc, etc. <br />
<br />
(i) The $64,000 question: Why does the Masculine Insecurity <a href="http://youtu.be/gHAnrXCvavc" target="_blank">Human Farming</a> Kaffir Legal Matrix not require citizens to voting or breeding licences???<br />
<br />
(ii) Kaffir Legislation covers up that an ‘Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control policy + <a href="http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_from_shortage_to_longage.html" target="_blank">No Social Welfare policies or practices provides for an equilibrium carrying capacity</a>; whereas Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control within a welfare state, results in Runaway Growth, and ultimately greater misery, poverty and war . <br />
<br />
(iii) Kaffir Legislation covers up that the Inalienable Right to Vote, or Universal Suffrage for the Ignorant is the road to centralisation of power and tyranny. <br />
<br />
[22] The Applicant is of the view that the main application raises novel questions which are crucial for the future credibility of Western Civilisation’s Masculine Insecurity <a href="http://youtu.be/gHAnrXCvavc" target="_blank">Human Farming</a> Kaffir Legal Matrix conceptualisation of the rule of law and the principle of legality. <br />
<br />
<b>10 May 2012 Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review & Declaratory Orders:</b><br />
<br />
[as in 15 April 2012 application to Oslo Court, point [3](4)]</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #0a1696;">[4] Norwegian Goverments Endorsement for ANC’s Terrorism & Breeding War:</span></span></strong><br />
<br /></blockquote>
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/06/biko-mandela-hero-psych-frantz-fanon.html"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUOtpnpyKYJs_6kl4PiFTeUHlo9HV75Nq5sbyoI3f1zO6e7HwHJEuhCaF2Ze_aZog5ZITLNuhRiO2fh5PyfUj_sRCBtXONt_ji7Mctw9oLshyphenhyphencZx1o8F-aOOEfjO4rlwG4DBw2-nw3dxM/s1600/Biko-Mandela-FFanon-Obama-Breivik-ColonizedMinds_366x479.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 479px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 366px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote>
<b>30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court: Habeus Mentem: Affidavit:</b><br />
<br />
[81-120] ARGUMENT: A case study: How the European politically correct cultural Marxist multicultural Anti-Apartheid movement overthrew Verwoerds Apartheid by means of political terrorism and an African breeding war; and installed the ANC regime that provides SA’s with between 3,000 to 25,000 % worse socio-political government services; & turned white South Africans into African White Refugees.<br />
<br />
<b>15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court: Amicus Curiae: Affidavit:</b><br />
<br />
[39-75] Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee: A Product of (A) European Masculine Insecurity Phallic Enhanced Colonialism and (B) African and Liberal Masculine Insecurity Anti-Apartheid Movement’s ‘Operation Production’ Breeding War<br />
<br />
[44-50] The Competitive Exclusion Principle (Apartheid) was an Act of Political Just War Self Defense to Tragedy of the Breeding War – Act of War – African Commons Exponential Population Growth:<br />
<br />
[51-54] Apartheid Inconvenient Truths Masculine Insecurity Liberals and Anti-Apartheid Movement Lack the Honour to Confront:<br />
<br />
[55-58] Masculine Insecurity Liberal Europe’s Endorsement of African Masculine Insecurity Anti-Apartheid Movement’s ‘Operation Production’ Breeding War:<br />
<br />
[59-75] Masculine Insecurity Liberal Europe’s Endorsement of African Masculine Insecurity Anti-Apartheid Movement’s Parasite Leeching TRC Fraud Social Contract:<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #0a1696;">[5] Norwegian Commitment to Rainbow Race Multiculturism is a Fraud:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<br /></blockquote>
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/06/to-see-farm-is-to-leave-farm-i-was-and.html"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqRHNzpkI_Lq2hYYNAxnsbOXvkJmpqkKfHE9MO809O2CanE0s8boidqtwnTkAQw_nO7Aki7_JBQgvYvwhL4yAGowAIJdJV2Rmb51C-FDC6YUSOlVZkVZrXKaBzK5cKUKM5aTWbow8YWMs/s1600/Co-Conspirator_NoOneRulesNoOneObeys_338x482.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 482px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 338px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote>
<b>10 May 2012 Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review & Declaratory Orders:</b><br />
<br />
[7-14] <b>B: NO COURTS: RAINBOW MULTICULTURAL / EURO-MONOCULTURAL?</b>:<br />
<br />
[7] A country which sincerely practices Multiculturalism (A) provides its citizens with the right to invoke cultural law which require the application of choice of law rules, as the SA Constitution does in S. 15 (3), 30, 31, and 185 and Apartheid Legislation enshrined; but (B) enforces the rights of citizens from all cultures to invoke cultural law, which ‘Rainbow’ South Africa does not (Radical Honesty culture and Afrikaners (Reits Four) have been denied the right to invoke cultural law, respectively: Radical Honesty Communication culture and Afrikaans/Western Voltarian Satire cultural values); but which Apartheid did allow for all black and white cultures.<br />
<br />
[11] It is the applicants working hypothesis that Norway’s alleged ‘My Rainbow Race’ commitment to Multiculturalism is a hoax; because it is not legally sincere about implementing a multicultural legal system which provides all of Norway citizens from different cultures’ with the right to invoke cultural law – whether Sharia , Zulu or Radical Honoursty – in its courts. The true reality of Norway’s Rainbow Multiculturalism is simply a bullshit-the-public-relations (PR) façade for importing Non-Western immigrants as Labour Party vote-fodder; while deceiving Non-Western immigrants of their true vote-fodder status.<br />
<br />
[14] Liberal ‘Multicultural’ Norwegians are closet white supremacy legal mono-culturalists. While condemning so-called ‘conservatives’ of ‘racism’ for their honest enemy condemnation of non-western cultural practices they consider inferior to ‘white western’ cultural values; liberal Norwegians secretly agree with conservatives, but pretend to support multiculturalism purely to import immigrant voters onto their welfare vote farm slavery plantations; but have no commitment to legislatively providing foreign cultures with the right to invoke cultural law and legally practice their foreign cultures in Norway:<br />
<blockquote>
“The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro’s friend and benefactor; and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political “football game” that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives…. Once the Negro learns to think for himself, he will no longer allow the white liberal to use him as a helpless football in the white man’s crooked game of “power politics.” The white conservatives aren’t friends of the Negro either, but they at least don’t try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them. But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro but pretend that they are smiling. The white liberals are more dangerous than the conservatives; they lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the “smiling” fox.” -- Excerpts from 1963 speech by Malcolm X: “<i><b>God’s Judgement of White America</b></i>.”</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">[D] Respondent’s conduct is a violation of their CCBE Code of Ethics duties:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
(2.1) <b>Independence</b>: to be totally free and independent from all other influences, including political or media (public relations) influence or pressure; <br />
<br />
(2.2) <b>Honesty</b>: withholding of honest information is a form of lying and deception, and also a violation of the principle that the rule of law requires legislation, including legislative alleged ‘insanity’ legislation to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom ); <br />
<br />
(2.4) <b>Multiculti Legal Respect</b>: Complainant is a paralegal member of the Radical Honesty culture [See: SA Constitutional Court Order by the Chief Justice in CCT 23-10: The Citizen v. Robert McBride on 03 May 2010: “The Chief Justice has issued the following directions: Ms. Lara Johnstone, Member of the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion is admitted as an Amicus Curiae.” (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100718_rhwr-concourt-amicus?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage" target="_blank">Annex A</a>)] and does not think it is too much ‘Multiculti Legal Respect’ to ask for any honest, impartial Lawyer to provide any individual, not just lawyers from ‘legal organisations’ with a fair honest response to their legal application to their court dispute; <br />
<br />
(4.1) <b>Rule of Law Conduct</b>: Demand that the court provide all applicants with honest and clear response from the Court regarding the status of all applications to the court, in terms of the rule of law principle that requires legislation and civil servant decisions to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom ) <br />
<br />
<b>ECHR: Rule of law requires adequately Precise and Accessible Legislation</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote>
In <i><b><a href="http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html">Lithgow & others v United Kingdom</a></b></i>, the European Court of Human Rights held that the rule of law requires provisions of legislation to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law: <br />
<blockquote>
“As regards the phrase "subject to the conditions provided for by law”, it requires in the first place the existence of and compliance with adequately accessible and sufficiently precise domestic legal provisions (see, amongst other authorities, the alone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 31-33, paras. 66-68).”</blockquote>
<br />
Respectfully Submitted <br />
<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist<br />
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity<br />
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/">http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/</a> <br />
<br />
Annexures: (Not Included: Links provided for download):<br />
[A] SA Constitutional Court Order by the Chief Justice in CCT 23-10 on 03 May 2010 (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100718_rhwr-concourt-amicus">PDF</a>)<br />
[B] 30 Nov 2011 Application to Oslo District Court for a Writ of Habeus Mentem (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/111130_breivik-habeus">PDF</a>)<br />
[C] 15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court to proceed as an Amicus Curiae (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120414_amicus">PDF</a>)<br />
[D] 10 May 2012 Appl. to Norway Supreme Court for Review & Declaratory Orders (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120510_nsc-rev">PDF</a>)<br />
[E] 15 May 2012 Error in Supreme Crt Dep Sec. Gen Response to Applic for Review (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120515_nsc-nygaard">PDF</a>)<br />
[F] 17 May 2012 Interpol Complaint: Obstruction of Env. & Ind. Rights Justice (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120517_interpol">PDF</a>)<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [Kindem & Co, Advokatkollegiet: Trond Erik Aansløkken (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_tea2?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPRFGjR1yNk_b9OCN0S6X6UvaEq3OJE4Ht0EMj8coYxsmLqyASI-xkVrPok2hgzBjEXdT0-fexkwv4EsxvtLw_DckA-szozy2KTxgxlNlCFL0ZFa_KCZuHSqVXQooVUDmH4o-dAnGwZNc/s1600/12-06-17_Trond+Erik+Aanslokken_Kindem+%2526+Co%252C+Advokatkollegiet.png">PoS</a>] | Advokat Øyvind Aakerøy: Øyvind Aakerøy (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_oa?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7I7RVCrF8baa-UwE21S6BXdgc-ZlRfhgx4R5lQROjGPHJJNqj_kSYFFmOR8wJB3LeGMyJEetgGQSR4Rb5878UGSh49nRhjjQQziAMUr3jVVQ_fNqxF9cZjVELH-QJMLRaU7cZg5JBlno/s1600/12-06-17_Oyvind+Aakeroy_Advokat+%25C3%2598yvind+Aaker%25C3%25B8y.png">PoS</a>] | Advokatfirmaet Vogt & Wiig AS: Øyvind Vidhammer (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_ov?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEju65SGNlU_IrXcUomg2wj4HK9cxEt8K5sKmvOOiXTXvstAgU6lBh35A0ScwdaRDydIY68H9fjya72uv30WVWgc44rs0b6uzeJ7M4ig1GYvXvhyphenhyphentA9cCcAUiO7zkXZQCS4Zl74sk6aYT-M/s1600/12-06-17_Oyvind+Vidhammer_Advokatfirmaet+Vogt+%2526+Wiig+AS.png">PoS</a>] | Advokatfirmaet Wold AS: Trude Marie Wold (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_tmw?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGYZp9iVh3gjEa9NQJwSPX_ifIih5VVLG1riSc9EIXOH30GhTsQmGnDaAb4UHwD0QHCVJvSHc1wZX03F8O3DMcmAFa__yTYZCtLwSKdt8XVRpZBqNMyTabnxGWW9phDHBkoQOEzMbyfK8/s1600/12-06-17_Trude+Marie+Wold_Advokatfirmaet+Wold+AS.png">PoS</a>] | Advokatfellesskapet Westby, King & Co: Trude Marie Mohn King (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_tmmk?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfN-84xJEstGGQ4M6aYbxl_XepjNhI8JDcgn5sEBydbgTB4bJiAXNZteA-_a8rkBn_jE0vhMuu7gNGzbhonzrALJ_rNw-x3bABzp_9Nw6QV8QL4k2uoTzsvu94zEwYgapQhwaIubbALmA/s1600/12-06-17_Trude+Marie+Mohn+King_Advokatfellesskapet+Westby%252C+King+%2526+Co.png">PoS</a>] | Advokat Trygve Tveter: Trygve Tveter (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_tt?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9bcWIPGWDbJmzS8SJEHoFWU0TndD1NanK3ryZle1QgjFEdtlW_ay8uZdq9UnOmubl2reb1jIcqNmswmOjHRY-gSPFyGCSIXeKE15ATEbBXEN_GXQOZfiUY248UFGSp6TnSLBWo271BWQ/s1600/12-06-17_Trygve+Tveter_Advokat+Trygve+Tveter.png">PoS</a>] | Advokatfirma Sørskår: Verna Rege Nilssen (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_vrn?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhdJrFMtqR5Njw3yyr8xiRku7SRX2QPPKEXNPjb46koIlrKGfxG92C59kHi1MTRQSAs6Uc4yFqRysrz7wdfryFwwjIpg0RDfobnWzeqPAbTYZnCzmmJMRcrQzZBQtyT2eChTktjPQ-oeI/s1600/12-06-17_Verna+Rege+Nilssen_Advokatfirma+S%25C3%25B8rsk%25C3%25A5r.png">PoS</a>] | Adnor Advokat AS: Vibeke Meland (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_vm?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg19St75wpNUvbMBNQLlF61cFkOpRQjHRzD93Ba_fqW8t-BgttUYJFUlIcqzd5cs0cEOMKp2kk-y_e1nZf797Dl-EaeZEhN4mcrmAxh5Irz_0hHrJ6k4LgjUSFBzCS5KEJblXJ0baE3DLA/s1600/12-06-17_Vibeke+Meland_Adnor+Advokat+AS.png">PoS</a>] | Advokatfellesskapet H M: Zulifqar Munir (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_zm?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWF6Tw3BGyCtlp_q9IteEBQDlOTik7SIYM5B09c9nsEeHljgSH1yUPBsuTgp7N2fByn96y-YLHZvCtnqC_1ChuOg9D-Wx6c8ejusB7XvrK5yoAE-6f7z1hjzvFgtx4m98C6oBEjTlaLgI/s1600/12-06-17_Zulifqar+Munir_Advokatfellesskapet+H+M.png">PoS</a>]]</span></strong></blockquote>
</div>
<br />
<div align="center">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG35_mG6caC4KBxsQJyTNhzHyA6-FQtZYnz5IBLl54ORu_a-boz0PBm8YdS-VFQ4KFCJO7VNfP5YqY4Wihq9GEzTHHgCMI0I_4LLD7wdGKQFqubGiB-gXfD5pJ4p6vMDhnlhn-1EMJtAY/s1600/TolerantNorwayPolPsychBreivik_ApartheidMandelaTreason_897x596.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWMyLbwkIUbk76EGOkStxXbt3U23JYE9udiDNPVgJhiFUsKD5W1nEsV6m48kuuqlr2JXWqlLk-QJLqc3tMJKd8_gbfiWLODJK-lckkTSqwxEgyVg254soN3Q-uLJydzBqjHQfNwpjbdoE/s1600/TolerantNorwayPolPsychBreivik_ApartheidMandelaTreason_600x399.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 399px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 600px;" /></a></div>
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-235992041677614029.post-13421718434598352442012-06-18T16:51:00.000-07:002012-07-01T05:00:46.290-07:00Bar Assoc: Disciplinary Complaints: TL Thingvold | TM Fagermo | TH Høyer | TH Pettersen | T Øydne | TR Pedersen | TW Karlsen | T Haug | T Laursen<div align="justify">
<br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<blockquote>
<strong><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Norsk Advokat Foreningen: Disciplinary Complaints: Tone Linn Thingvold | Tor Magnus Fagermo | Tore Helseth Høyer | Tore Hilding Pettersen | Tore Øydne | Torgeir Røinås Pedersen | Toril Wirkola Karlsen | Torunn Haug | Tove Laursen</span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Complaint: Violation of: CCBE Code of Ethics: Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial, to (1) deny Defendant his Political Necessity Treason Trial; and (2) support Corruption of the Court to deny submittal to the Court of Controversial Evidence related to: [1] Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; [2] Norway’s endorsement of Political Psychiatry & Psychiatric Fraud; [3] Masculine Insecurity Human Farming for Profit Kaffir Legal Matrix; [4] Norwegian Goverments Endorsement for ANC’s Terrorism & Breeding War; [5] Norwegian Commitment to Rainbow Race Multiculturism is a Fraud </span></span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 95%;">Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 18 June 2012</span></strong></blockquote>
</div>
<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/search/label/*%20Complaints%3A%20Advokat%20Foreningen"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDdIrpExYV77_MYg_VL95cDM5wQIqO1UaUMjR282UeLgijiPLMdq_9kIqYdNoUBCoRPpXSoaNGax7LN7YVZm4YRC-QDoddjc8hkw9yV1CHfIYgq7BQaXykpAddgiYtOJMpQgNLdd8D84o/s1600/NorskAdv_145153_TLThingvold_TLaursen_329x572.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 572px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 329px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: 95%;">Complainant filed two applications to the Oslo District Court and a subsequent application to the Norway Supreme Court in the Norway v. Breivik matter, wherein Adv.For.Respondent is a legal representative in the matter in dispute. Adv.For.Respondent appears to either individually as a legal representative in fear of White Supremacy Psycho-Tyranny-Terror, or as part of a collective conspiracy, to be a participant to the obstruction of Justice by Denying the Defendant his Political Necessity Defence Treason Trial. <br />
<br />
It appears as if the legal participants involved in this matter are involved in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial on the world stage, demonstrating to the world how to rob a Political Dissenter Terrorist of his rule of law right to a Treason Trial. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://heimdals.blogspot.com/2012/06/breivik-case-and-use-of-soviet.html">Breivik Case & Use of Soviet Phychiatric Hospitals as Methods for Discrediting Political Ideas</a>:<br />
<br />
Reidar Roll was the Secretary General for the ICDE for 20 years. He writes on his blog at Minervas: Breivik Case and the Use of Soviet Phychiatric Hospitals as Methods for Discrediting Political Ideas that he is not impressed with the Norwegian State Attorney's strategy of focussing on a Political Psychiatry Trial; instead of a Political Terror Treason Trial; which he says is “dangerously close to using Soviet methods to supress political ideas that are seen to be dangerous to the social democratic order in Norway.” </span></blockquote>
<br /><a name='more'></a>
<br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJZPj_1SWXWvyLlmRAgy0CECpSqhbfzctqlXhs97tHB4maoYbOMEvkQ9wg8GGeJtrggM9CDTSYcuf0w6P8PMn3xY-0nr91BulyjINw0y0Hspz-SGwc5NgHa1VtgcBwZpc3PRRkdJ8Mrs/s1600/NorwayVBreivik_FleurdeLis_MargaretHagen_556x119.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 119px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 556px;" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<blockquote>
<strong><span style="font-size: 120%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Norsk Advokat Foreningen: Disciplinary Complaints: </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 105%;">Advokat Tone Linn Thingvold: Tone Linn Thingvold (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_tlt?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtG9f6VBUOlltT1N8Ac6ErcUDXqRs_fylHhOU7AdBjKS_M0DYi1w9KvZYaPYvHHlNBbXwG9ZG90IWSVW1Jnv5Ouo-V-9VlTCNwp2oAbC4QHOWYFTZTPydpX4k9n-pVGCvfG7BrlvYR9kI/s1600/12-06-17_Tone+Linn+Thingvold_Advokat+Tone+Linn+Thingvold.png">PoS</a>]<br />
Advokat Fagermo: Tor Magnus Fagermo (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_tmg?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEillWeYA3edxsbbZ7rdt9NCXihZzyTZih_N3o1oGTryMKK01I6aLT6700xfVfCSEMJG_RMRXlIEegPZVhDpi_iWejiyMn6gM0ndBXDM6I_auRIPrvA3jh5-8KzU_yqiu8_enlw3PKtiLVE/s1600/12-06-17_Tor+Magnus+Fagermo_Advokat+Fagermo.png">PoS</a>]<br />
Advokatfirma Sjødin & Co. DA: Tore Helseth Høyer (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_thh?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGKJq1xzgHL5OjLdmIL4qf9xhyphenhyphennd-EywWc55z7qtIAFC3o8BWCUO7RpA6MXPUaISpGX-9NNJ74uhK93N5aH9CUQOsK5I1f-Nf-ZdzPODKvw0yrVXhrmaWs1zi6I0yiEQcmnKdU4RBX6V8/s1600/12-06-17_Tore+Helseth+Hoyer_Advokatfirma+Sj%25C3%25B8din+%2526+Co.+DA.png">PoS</a>]<br />
Advokatfirma Pettersen Vestbakke & Co DA: Tore Hilding Pettersen (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_thp?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4bA9HpoICo92rRGruifgFA2suen9dY36rYkSoe9UeOltDBH0pHjQA2Cytnijf8drp7E2w7ze0w-mLhvp4QoyJm91R2OUYsqUxL9GgLDHX09oENuHXZLyi37RSuLsPX95VOsO_c71HAhQ/s1600/12-06-17_Tore+Hilding+Pettersen_Advokatfirma+Pettersen+Vestbakke+%2526+Co+DA.png">PoS</a>]<br />
Sørlandsadvokatene DA: Tore Øydne (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_to?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL5Uxc7Jxrn9zmZIA9Q9b1P98oqUWD4mloxqBFTUXEL8sA3KvVQbqlJGt1v3PU6tZgUjzfV3reAqaeFTLyGmuxZYhBzw4Zt6KpCXLFLMwjb4tVDW4_9ag4cUyFxPjTIalcuDbUtBKW3iU/s1600/12-06-17_Tore+Oydne_S%25C3%25B8rlandsadvokatene+DA.png">PoS</a>]<br />
Advokathuset Fredrikstad: Torgeir Røinås Pedersen (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_trp?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5jWREYIFYsWcIGN0Fa70urwLmWevgDKEZMg1NeNHf2hVh_oGpOyzh5VpKqi6X05BjJDVDwatF-fg9gNV5F-C6PpNdU9szbdNnJOQFWOwNXxUNPEDUxOxFTN-ClW1BXhWHrfILJ6RN7d8/s1600/12-06-17_Torgeir+roinas+Pedersen_Advokathuset+Fredrikstad.png">PoS</a>]<br />
Advokatfirmaet Velund & Co: Toril Wirkola Karlsen (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_twk?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioR_YhrGrEd6VXq_BT3bTR4c7wlsR3q7qY73AK8IwvnS2uWktFmVv70Xx4-W1Wg5qtjayCJINDkl-R2b7hwr8NTjcvhmqcaLMZ4e5Mu4uU8A-ry-5IRzV5OeegKTMob6Tpf744JMMPyME/s1600/12-06-17_Toril+Wirkola+Karlsen_Advokatfirmaet+Velund+%2526+Co.png">PoS</a>]<br />
Advokatfirmaet Torunn Haug AS: Torunn Haug (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_th2?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8LpE7O6oDZWbMwX98b1Sb2CiehxbZLYMMBF_5yWBQMkqNwssdKGVZDIGAW9HQOKK-kDBAFD_LcfwtCYGmD37z8jmXmbboWDsM6q7CErUCvBcodDllyMNU2QWt9hhPSDYBruc7d4QZAzM/s1600/12-06-17_Torunn+Haug_Advokatfirmaet+Torunn+Haug+AS.png">PoS</a>]<br />
Advokatfellesskapet Falch: Tove Laursen (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_tl?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoTVQwf16cbyTCcjKIKvBMw01F54rwrXQI8lk5b1-xDFI8B_58wy7181sGsiUE3y9iMFr6KTElgJfyWvKXf4tnuIcMIzuvXczMHC4BEs-dyXV5K7Gk3Oq-u0UY80eyS4AGvUV7bU_OjCc/s1600/12-06-17_Tove+Laursen_Advokatfellesskapet+Falch.png">PoS</a>]<br />
</span></strong></blockquote>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">Complaint: Violation of: 2.1 (Independence), 2.2 (Honesty), 2.4 (Multiculti Legal Respect) & 4,1 (Rule of Law Conduct) of <a href="http://www.advokatforeningen.no/Etiske-regler/Internasjonale-regler/CCBEs-etiske-regler-norsk/" target="_blank">CCBE Code of Ethics (Norwegian translation)</a>: Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial, to (1) deny Defendant his Political Necessity Treason Trial; and (2) support Corruption of the Court to deny submittal to the Court of Controversial Evidence related to: [1] Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; [2] Norway’s endorsement of Political Psychiatry & Psychiatric Fraud; [3] Masculine Insecurity Human Farming for Profit Kaffir Legal Matrix; [4] Norwegian Goverments Endorsement for ANC’s Terrorism & Breeding War; [5] Norwegian Commitment to Rainbow Race Multiculturism is a Fraud</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">[A] Overview of Complaint: </span></span></strong><br />
<br />
Complainant filed two applications to the Oslo District Court and a subsequent application to the Norway Supreme Court in the Norway v. Breivik matter, wherein Respondent is a legal representative, on behalf of Victims Family/ies in the matter in dispute. Respondent appears to either individually as a legal representative, be petrified of White Supremacy Psycho-Tyranny-Terror, or as part of a collective conspiracy, to be a participant to the obstruction of Justice by Denying the Defendant his Political Necessity Defence Treason Trial. <br />
<br />
A Political Necessity Treason Trial would examine whether the Defendant’s Political Necessity Evidence is beyond reasonable doubt sufficient to justify his innocence; or diminish his guilt. Expert witnesses would be able to be subpoenaed to determine whether his Political Necessity allegations are true or not. <br />
<br />
This StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial Insanity Fishing Expedetion appears to be implying that Norwegian White Supremacy Psychiatry believes that they are God and can decide whether its ‘normal’ for white men to be corporate terrorists, but not violent terrorist Jihadi’s. <br />
<br />
It appears as if the legal participants involved in this matter are involved in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial on the world stage, demonstrating to the world how to rob a Political Dissenter Terrorist of his rule of law right to a Treason Trial. <br />
<br />
<b>Breivik Case & Use of Soviet Phychiatric Hospitals as Methods for Discrediting Political Ideas</b>:<br />
<br />
Reidar Roll was the Secretary General for for the ICDE for 20 years. He writes on his blog at Minervas: <a href="http://heimdals.blogspot.com/2012/06/breivik-case-and-use-of-soviet.html">Breivik Case and the Use of Soviet Phychiatric Hospitals as Methods for Discrediting Political Ideas</a> that he is not impressed with the Norwegian State Attorney's strategy of focussing on a Political Psychiatry Trial; instead of a Political Terror Treason Trial; which he says is “dangerously close to using Soviet methods to supress political ideas that are seen to be dangerous to the social democratic order in Norway.”<br />
<blockquote>
“It is time to review the performance of the prosecution. They have failed to understand or admit that they are dealing with a political case, and not a case of insanity.”<br />
<br />
“Breivil attacked the Norwegian Labour Party, blaming them for destroying Norway by permtting unchecked muslim immigration. A huge number of Norwegians share that opinion.”<br />
<br />
“From the very beginning the prosecution had to understand that they deal with a political terror attack on the Labour party. Not on Norway. On the Labour Party. The distinction seems to be important to understand.”<br />
<br />
The prosecution have spent an amazing amount of time trying to assert that Breivik’s Knights Templar network does not exist. The Knights Templar were an order who, during the Crusades fought against the muslims. The political symbolism for Breivik in that name is rather clear, also that he engages in political propaganda.<br />
<br />
Mr Breivik’s political fight is likely to continue from jail. He will want to see such networks as the Knights Templar develop, prosper, and take action against the immigration of Islam into Europe through violence. These ideas will not go away by forcing mental illness on the ideas. which is what the prosecution seems to be doing. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
Soviet psychiatric hospitals known as "psikhushkas" were used by the Soviet authorities as prisons in order to isolate hundreds or thousands of political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally. <br />
<br />
The Norwegian state attorney strategy does not impress us. They are dangerously close to using Soviet methods to supress political ideas that are seen to be dangerous to the social democratic order in Norway.</blockquote>
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">[B] Chronology of Facts</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<b>30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court: Habeus Mentem:</b><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
[1] On 30 November 2011, complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2011/12/oslo-district-court-norway-v-breivik.html" target="_blank">filed an Application to the Oslo District Court</a>: Application for a [I] writ of Habeus Mentem on behalf of Anders Breivik psycho-cultural integrity right to a free and fair trial; and [II] writ of Certiorari/Review of the Psychiatric Evaluation Report of Psychiatrists: Synne Serheim and Torgeir Husby as to the Mens Rea political necessity criminal liability of Anders Breivik terrorist acts, on 22 July 2011. (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/111130_breivik-habeus?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage" target="_blank">PDF</a>)<br />
<br />
[2] On 15 December 2012 complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2011/12/notice-to-oslo-court-request-date-judge.html" target="_blank">informed the court</a> that: “Please could you confirm: (1) The date my application is to be submitted to Judge Opsahl, or the relevant Judge, for their consideration. (2) The date the said Judge intends to provide me with their ruling on the matter.” <br />
<br />
[3] There has been no response from the Clerk of the Court. I imagine that the Judge has ordered the Clerk to ignore the application. Refusal to respond to an application implies that the application is being denied, and that the applicant is unworthy of a transparent due process response . A complaint has been filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges.<br />
<br />
[4] Respondent’s silence on the matter is a violation of their CCBE Ethical Duties to the court and all applicants to courts in all court disputes. </blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<b>15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court: Amicus Curiae:</b><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
[1] On 15 April 2012, Complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/no-v-breivik-ecofeminist-application-to.html" target="_blank">filed an Application to the Oslo District Court</a>: Application to proceed as In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amicus Curiae for an Order (1) to approve the Applicant as an In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amici Curiae, and (2) Amending the Charges Against the Defendant and Applicant to include Treason in terms of Article 85 of Norwegian Constitution, and if found guilty, in a free and fair trial; to be executed by firing squad. The application requested the Prosecution and Defence to respond by 23 April 2012 either consenting to, or objecting to, the application. (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120414_amicus?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage" target="_blank">PDF</a>)<br />
<br />
[2] On 26 April 2012, Complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/update-ecofeminist-applic-to-oslo-court.html" target="_blank">informed the court that</a>: “There has been no response from the Prosecution and Defence either consenting to, or objecting to, my application to proceed as an Amicus. Please could you confirm: (1) The date my application is to be submitted to Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, or the relevant Judge, for her/their consideration. (2) The date the said Judge intends to provide me with their ruling approving or denying my application.” <br />
<br />
[3] There has been no response from the Clerk of the Court. I imagine that the Judge has ordered the Clerk to ignore the application. Refusal to respond to an application implies that the application is being denied, and that the applicant is unworthy of a transparent due process response . A complaint has been filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges.<br />
<br />
[4] If approved, the Applicants Amicus written submissions would (a) address alternative legal arguments to those of both the Prosecution and Defense, i.e. from a Problem Solving Radical Transparency EcoFeminists perspective as opposed to the Prosecution & Defense’s Parasite Leeching Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal perspectives; (b) ‘argue points deemed too far reaching for emphasis by parties intent on winning their particular Parasite Leeching Masculine Insecurity case’ ; (c) ‘apprise the court of Problem Solving Radical Transparency EcoFeminists legal, social, economic, ecological and cultural enquiry implications for its consideration’ to allow the court to base its decision on a larger, more comprehensive, and more accurate reality based natural law legal framework; (d) provide the court with hard evidence of (I) non-violent Jus Sanguinis African White Refugee applications filed to European Heads of State for France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom and NATO Military Committee; providing evidentiary arguments for support for a Boer Volkstaat; or Jus Sanguinis Right of Return to Europe for African White Refugees; (II) how former and current UNHCR, ECRE and ELENA Officials <a href="http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/search/label/*%20ECRE-ELENA%3A%20Anti-White%20Refugee%20Bias" target="_blank">deliberately wish to censor the issue of African White Refugees from public scrutiny and knowledge</a>; so that the court’s final judgment shall include a Problem Solving Radical Transparency EcoFeminists legal analysis .<br />
<br />
[5] Respondents silence on the matter is a violation of their CCBE Ethical Duties to the court and all applicants to courts in all court disputes. </blockquote>
<br />
<b>10 May 2012 Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review & Declaratory Orders:</b><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
[1] On 10 May 2012, Complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/ecofeminists-deep-green-ecology.html" target="_blank">filed an Application to the Norway Suprem Court</a>: Application (1) to be admitted as a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee; (2) for An Order demanding the Norwegian Ministry of Culture to act in accordance to European Court of Human Rights ruling in Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom, and clarify in adequately accessible and sufficiently precise statement; whether Norway is (A) a ‘Children of the Rainbow’ State legally committed to Multiculturalism, providing all cultures their right to invoke cultural law and hence granting the Applicant her rights to invoke Radical Honoursty cultural law; or (B) a Monocultural Indigenous European Supremacy Legal Hegemonic State, and that the Labour Party Immigration policy is a tactic to maintain their grip on power, by importing Non-Western immigrants as Labour Party vote-fodder; (3) to Review the Oslo District Court failure to act in accordance of due process to a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee Applicant member of the Radical Honesty culture. (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120510_nsc-rev?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage" target="_blank">PDF</a>)<br />
<br />
[2] On 11 May 2012 complainant requested from Norway Supreme Court Officials: Mr. Svein Andersen / Mr. Kjersti Ruud: “Could you kindly clarify when the Registrar shall issue a Case Number; or whether you require additional documentation or information?” <br />
<br />
[3] On 15 May 2012, Kjersti Buun Nygaard <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/no-supreme-crt-dep-sec-gen-kjersti-buun.html" target="_blank">responded with</a>: “Reference is made to your e-mails regarding the above issue. Please be advised that the Supreme Court of Norway only handles appeals against judgments given by the lower courts and can consequently not deal with the issue mentioned in your e-mails. Further inquiries from you regarding the above issue can not be expected to be answered.”<br />
<br />
[4] On 15 May 2012, complainant <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/no-supreme-crt-dep-sec-gen-kjersti-buun.html" target="_blank">responded with</a>: (I) Error in Supreme Court: Deputy Secretary General: Kjersti Buun Nygaard Response to SHARP Application to Supreme Court for Declaratory Orders and Review of Oslo District Court’s Decisions; (II) Notice of Commencement of Hungerstrike in absence of Supreme Court Case number by 17:00 on 22 May 2012.<br />
<br />
[5] On 17 May 2012, complainant filed an <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/16-may-ecofeminist-death-battalion.html" target="_blank">Environmental Crime Complaint to Interpol, via Norway Police</a>; Charges: Obstruction of Environmental & Indigenous Rights Justice Committed by Chief Justice Tore Schei & Dep. Sec. Gen: Kjersti Nygaard<br />
<br />
[6] There has been no response from any Supreme Court official. A complaint has been filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges.<br />
<br />
[7] Respondents silence on the matter is a violation of their CCBE Ethical Duties to the court and all applicants to courts in all court disputes. </blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">[C] Controversial Arguments in Complainants Applications</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle<br />
<br />
“There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world.” – Thomas Jefferson</blockquote>
<br />
Controversial issues include (1) the <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/pm-stoltenberg-and-1676-no-gov.html" target="_blank">political</a> and <a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/482-norwegian-lawyers-law-professors.html" target="_blank">legal</a> elite’s paranoia to confront the Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (2) Norways political, academic and legal elites paranoia to confront Norways endorsement of Political Psychiatry; and (3) Western civilisation’s Masculine Insecurity Human Farming - for <a href="http://www.teachpeace.com/Report_from_Iron_Mountain.pdf" target="_blank">Iron Mountain</a> <a href="http://warisaracket.org/dedication.html" target="_blank">‘War is a Racket</a> profit - Kaffir Legal Matrix [MIC’S WAR IS PEACE WHORE: how Norway’s ‘War is Peace’ Nobel Institute is the favourite War is Peace Whore for the International Iron Mountain ‘War is a Racket profit - Kaffir Legal Matrix Military Industrical Complex (MIC)]. <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #0a1696;">[1] Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection: </span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<br /></blockquote>
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/breivik-acquittal-or-firing-squad-if-it.html"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgFfl1FXsncT6EqKyf1QSan88xGkxprbAU2DS2lPK5zpo7kSf0nCRYzWVKEE5Z3djRdGmzxs8_wGrZAi6S-QEHmvPnOBX3w90LMnzYCZtMsHQgtTk1lBuGxb7crtTNCjiflHGMp-GW1ao/s1600/IfItBleedsItLeads_MRKerbel.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 300px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 195px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote>
<b>30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court: Habeus Mentem: Affidavit:</b><br />
<br />
[36](3) Written Statement of Consent by T. Michael Maher, Ph.D, to testify as expert witness for <i><b>How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection and Media Framing and Salience of the Population Issue</b></i> (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100522_cct2310_affid-dr-t-m-maher?mode=a_p" target="_blank">PDF</a>) and <i><b>Study: How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection</b></i> (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection?mode=a_p" target="_blank">PDF</a>)<br />
<br />
[63] While he does not share the political-cultural beliefs of Che Guevarra, Jaan Laaman, Tom Manning, Marilyn Buck, Carlos the Jackal, Nelson Mandela, Robert McBride, etc (left wing terrorists: none of whom were considered by conservative prosecutors to require psychological evaluation, but who were allowed their day in court to take personal and political responsibility for their politically violent criminal acts); I imagine they may find themselves in agreement as to how Mainstream Access-to-Discourse Gatekeeper editors censorship contributed to their decision-making to resort to political necessity violence. <br />
<br />
[64] Excerpt: <a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100718_rhwr-concourt-amicus?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage" target="_blank">Amicus Curiae to SA Constitutional Court (CCT 23-10)</a>: Mainstream Access-to-Discourse-Gatekeeper Editors censorship of nonviolent political grievances and problem solving activism facilitate a pressure cooker socio-political reality for their ‘If it Bleads, it Leads’ corporate propaganda profits, in knowledge application of: <br />
<br />
1. ‘As long as there is some possibility of getting results by political means, the chances that any political group or individual will turn violent are truly radically small, or maybe vanishingly small’; <br />
<br />
2. ‘The exposure in the media is what gets people’s attention. People follow what is happening in the news, not what is happening in the courts’; <br />
<br />
3. ‘[Editors] abuse of media power, by means of strategies whereby they abuse public discourse/free speech resources; by providing certain parties with preferential and special access to such public discourse, and severely restricting or denying others any access to such public discourse; <br />
<br />
4. Mainstream media avoid addressing or enquiring into root causes of problems as reported in <i><b><a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection?mode=a_p" target="_blank">How and Why Journalists Avoid Population – Environment connection</a></b></i>; and censor non-violent root-cause problem solving activism.<br />
<br />
<b>10 May 2012 Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review & Declaratory Orders:</b><br />
<br />
[4] Applicant: Radical Honoursty Transparency Political Necessity EcoFeminist Terrorist:<br />
<br />
[5] I have political motivated criminal convictions for: Terrorism: On 18 June 2002 (Phi Day and President Mbeki’s 60th birthday) I made a bomb threat to the P.W. Botha International airport in George and then turned myself into the Police, based upon the political necessity of exposing SA’s Truth and Reconciliation Fraud (particularly the relationship between overpopulation and terrorism and the media’s coverup of overpopulation-environment-terrorism connections). I was sentenced to two years correctional supervision.<br />
<br />
[6] The applicant has filed the following non-violent applications to request South African and other International Authorities support her minority right to public discourse on the matter of (a) the importance of a Deep Ecology Sustainability Bill of Rights and worldview; (b) Population/Demographic Masculine Insecurity Breeding War roots of Political and Resource war violence, including Apartheid Violence; (c) the relationship between Media Censorship of Overpopulation and it’s Resource War and Terrorism consequences, (d) Jus Sanguinis European Indigenous Citizenship for African White Refugees, (e) equitable recognition of the Radical Honoursty culture, (f) South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation (TRC) Fraud’s African White Refugee consequences<br />
<br />
[33] <b>If It Bleeds, It Leads Media’s Population–Terror Connection Masculine Insecurity</b>:<br />
<br />
"[Breivik] emphasizes that if he had not been censored by the media all his life, he would not have had to do what he did. He believes the media have the main responsibility for what has happened because they did not publish his opinions.... The low-intensity civil war that he had already described, had lasted until now with ideological struggle and censorship of cultural conservatives...... He explains that this is the worst day of his life and that he has dreaded this for 2 years. He has been censored for years. He mentions Dagbladet and Aftenposten as those who among other things have censored him..... He says that he also wrote “essays” that he tried to publish via the usual channels, but that they were all censored..... The subject summarizes: As long as more than twelve were executed, the operation will still be a success. The experts ask how the number twelve comes into consideration. Twelve dead are needed to penetrate the censorship wall, he explains..... About his thoughts on the Utøya killings now, the subject says: The goal was to execute as many as possible. At least 30. It was horrible, but the number had to be assessed based on the global censorship limit. Utøya was a martyrdom, and I am very proud of it..... The subject says in the conversation that he knows the truth that is hidden from others. He believes that there is a civil war in the country. He believes he had to kill at least twelve, because there is a censorship-wall preventing an open debate about what is happening in the country..... So I knew I had to cross a certain threshold to exceed the censorship-wall of the international media." -- <i><b>Oslo Organized Crime Police Investigation Report: "Explanation of 22 July 2011</b></i>, doc 08,01"<br />
<br />
[34] On 22 April 2012 (Earth Day), Applicant distributed the “<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/breivik-acquittal-or-firing-squad-if-it.html" target="_blank">Acquittal or Firing Squad :: If It Bleeds, It Leads :: Media’s Population – Terrorism Connection Report</a>”</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<br />
It provides Scientific Journalism studies about Media Censorship in the matter of Norway v. Breivik, detailing Media Masculine (Transparency) Insecurity surrounding the ‘Better an Honest Enemy; than a False Friend’ events of support for a free and fair trial for Breivik from a Pasthtun Pakistani and a Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist (Applicant).<br />
<br />
The Report detailed how the Media’s Anders Breivik Narrative appears to be:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A. * Breivik is legally insane<br />
B. * His ‘If It Bleads, It Leads’ justification for Terrorism is Unjustified </blockquote>
<br />
However the Media Censored information such as: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
C. * Whores of the Court Myth of Mental Illness: Insanity is to PharmaPsychiatry what Heresy was to the Inquisition<br />
D. * Media’s If It Bleads, It Leads Population-Terrorism Connection </blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #0a1696;">[2] Norway’s endorsement of Political Psychiatry and Psychiatric Fraud</span></span></strong><br />
<br /></blockquote>
<a href="http://armigideon-knights.co.nr/"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg662oH3IML7mIvuyp8Xnpv8ww1MDa1SUHCw0-vY9n4WfFpvfpTTsvwsbmMvxaJ0GSHHRwBZIbJ0cL2B8Hqz4vc1bvoKGOiiswGCa1Ez3EINXNliqtL3RJ5z8C-n3yTX6xWG7kcUK-pufs/s1600/LucyJohnstone_Users-Abusers-Psychiatry_DSM_331x588.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 588px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 331px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote>
<b>30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court: Habeus Mentem: Affidavit:</b><br />
<br />
[72] It would appear to me that any psychiatrist who considered themselves to be a fundamentalist politically correct cultural Marxist multi-culturalist as well as honourable democrat, should honourably recuse themselves from an enquiry into Mr. Breivik’s alleged sanity, based upon their predisposition to be biased towards his actions. <br />
<br />
[73] The absence of doing so, only proves Mr. Breivik’s actions to have been fully justified, and his charges to be accurate regarding the bias and lack of commitment to democratic values open transparent discourse practiced by fundamentalist politically correct cultural Marxist multi-culturalists. <br />
<br />
[76-77] ARGUMENT: Breivik clearly and very ‘reasonably’ explains his Political Necessity Motivations for his Political Terrorist acts:<br />
<br />
[78-80] ARGUMENT: Breivik clearly details his beliefs that hardcore Marxists, cultural Marxists Multiculturalists are deceiving indigenous Europeans, by implementing a demographic conquering Breeding War Act of War upon them. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<br />
<b>April 15, 2012 Application to Oslo District Court: Amicus Curiae: Affidavit:</b><br />
<br />
[26] <b>HABEUS MENTEM :: THE RIGHT TO LEGAL SANITY </b><br />
<br />
In Aldous Huxley’s <i><b>A Brave New World Revisited</b></i> he describes the insidious conspiracy to manipulate the masses by propaganda and lies, so as to make them controllable under the “steadily increasing pressures of over-population and of the over-organization imposed by growing numbers and advancing technology”:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It is perfectly possible for a man to be out of prison, and yet not free -- to be under no physical constraint and yet to be a psychological captive, compelled to think, feel and act as the representatives of the national State, or of some private interest within the nation, want him to think, feel and act. There will never be such a thing as a writ of habeas mentem; for no sheriff or jailer can bring an illegally imprisoned mind into court, and no person whose mind had been made captive by the methods outlined in earlier articles would be in a position to complain of his captivity. The nature of psychological compulsion is such that those who act under constraint remain under the impression that they are acting on their own initiative. The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him, the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. That he is not free is apparent only to other people. His servitude is strictly objective.</blockquote>
The problem – of course – for those who partake in this insidious conspiracy is that ultimately the propagandists begin to believe their own propaganda.<br />
<br />
[27] <b>Marketing of Madness: The Myth of Mental Illness Experts</b> (21:04) <br />
<br />
‘There is no such thing as mental illness. Psychiatric diagnosis of ‘mental disorders’ is just a way of stigmatising behaviour that society does not want to live with. Psychiatry thrives on coercion and is replacing religion as a form of social control.’ - Dr. Thomas Szasz<br />
<br />
“Biological psychology/psychiatry is a total perversion of medicine and science, and a fraud.” - Neurologist Fred Baughman, <i><b>The ADHD Fraud: How Psychiatry Makes "Patients" of Normal Children</b></i>.<br />
<br />
“Going to a psychiatrist has become one of the most dangerous things a person can do.” - Peter Breggin, MD; <i><b>Toxic Psychiatry.</b></i><br />
<br />
“There is no such thing as a mental disorder. A mental disorder is whatever someone says it is, and if the person saying "This is a mental disorder", has enough power and influence, then people believe 'Oh, that is a mental disorder'.” - Dr. Paula Caplan, Harvard <br />
<br />
“The entire enterprise of defining mental disorder is pointless, at least in so far as the goal is to allow us to recognize ‘genuine’ or ‘true’ disorders” - Dr. Mary Boyle, <i><b>Schizophrenia: A Scientific Delusion?</b></i><br />
<br />
“DSM is a book of tentatively assembled agreements. Agreements don’t always make sense, nor do they always reflect reality. You can have agreements among experts without validity. Even if you could find four people who agreed that the earth is flat, that the moon is made of green cheese, that smoking cigarettes poses no health risks, or that politicians are never corrupt, such agreements do not establish truth.” – Herb Kutchins and Stuart Kirk: <i><b>Making us Crazy: DSM: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental Disorders </b></i><br />
<br />
“To admit the central role of value judgments and cultural norms [in the creation of the DSM] is to give the whole game away. The DSM has to be seen as reliable and valid, or the whole enterprise of medical psychiatry collapses.” -- Lucy Johnstone, <i><b>The Users and Abusers of Psychiatry</b></i><br />
<br />
“[Alleged Mental Disorders] are based on a grab-bag of checklists for disorders that are published in a book called the DSM; which is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. There are no statistics in this book, by the way. That just makes it sound more scientific.” -- Dr Margaret Hagen, Professor of Psychology, Boston University, <i><b>Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice</b></i>.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice</b></i>, Margaret A. Hagen, Ph.D | <i><b>The Second Sin</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>Coercion as Cure: A Critical History of Psychiatry</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>Insanity: The Idea and its Consequences</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>Law, Liberty and Psychiatry</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>A Lexicon of Lunacy: Metaphoric Malady, Moral Responsibility and Psychiatry</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>Liberation by Oppression: A Comparative Study of Slavery and Psychiatry</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>The Age of Madness: The history of Involuntary Mental Hospitalization</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>The Myth of Psychotherapy</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>Psychiatry: The Science of Lies</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>The Therapeutic State: Psychiatry in the Mirror of Current Events</b></i>, Thomas Szasz | <i><b>The ADHD Fraud: How Psychiatry Makes "Patients" of Normal Children</b></i>, Fred A. Bauchmann, Jr, MD | <i><b>Toxic Psychiatry</b></i>, Peter Breggin, MD | <i><b>They Say You're Crazy: How the Worlds Most Powerful Psychiatrists Decide Who's Normal</b></i>, Paula J. Caplan Ph.D | <i><b>Schizophrenia: A Scientific Delusion</b></i>, Mary Boyle | <i><b>Making us Crazy: DSM: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental Disorders</b></i>, Herb Kutchins & Stuart A Kirk | <i><b>Users and Abusers of Psychiatry: A Critical Look at Traditional Psychiatric Practice</b></i>, Lucy Johnstone<br />
<br />
[28] <b>NORWAYS HISTORY OF POLITICAL PSYCHIATRY</b><br />
<br />
An analysis by SINTEF (research organisation) in 1996, showed that about 45 percent of all psychiatric hospitalisations in Norwegian psychiatric clinics, are coercive. In other EU countries coercive institutionalization is between 5-15 percent. -- Fampo, Norway <a href="http://www.fampo.info/">www.fampo.info</a><br />
<br />
<b>Knut Hamsen</b>: Author, winner of Nobel Prize in Literature in 1920: <i><b>The Growth of the Soil</b></i>. Charged with treason for his writings in support of Hitler, but then declared to be mentally impaired by psychiatrists to avoid Norway giving him a treason trial. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<br />
<b>Arnold Juklerod</b>: Institutionalized at Gaustad in 1971, as “paranoid schizophrenic,” after exposing corruption in the Education Dept. His alleged “unchangeable paranoid false ideas” were subsequently proven true, but Norwegian psychiatrists refused to delete his ‘paranoid schizophrenia’ diagnosis. <br />
<br />
<b>Synnove Fjellbakk Tafto</b>: A diplomat and jurist was labelled mentally ill and institutionalized after exposing massive corruption in the Norwegian Foreign Service. Author: Skjoldmoysagaen.<br />
<br />
<b>Kare Torvholm & Oddmar Remoy</b>: Dr. Bjorn Martin Aasen, justified their institutionalization because: "he belongs to a civil network with both local, national, & international connections, which purpose is to disclose criminal things...; which fulfills their mental disorder requirements'...<br />
<br />
<b>Anders Breivik</b>: Does Breivik's 22/7 acts expose the corruption of Norway's Immigration policies? Is Breivik qualified to fulfil Norways mental disorder requirements? Does Breivik “belong to a civil network with both local, national, & international connections, with the purpose to disclose criminal things”?<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>10 May 2012 Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review & Declaratory Orders:</b><br />
<br />
[34] On 22 April 2012 (Earth Day), Applicant distributed the “<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/breivik-acquittal-or-firing-squad-if-it.html" target="_blank">Acquittal or Firing Squad :: If It Bleeds, It Leads :: Media’s Population – Terrorism Connection Report</a>”</blockquote>
<blockquote>
It provides Scientific Journalism studies about Media Censorship in the matter of Norway v. Breivik, detailing Media Masculine (Transparency) Insecurity surrounding the ‘Better an Honest Enemy; than a False Friend’ events of support for a free and fair trial for Breivik from a Pasthtun Pakistani and a Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist (Applicant).<br />
<br />
The Report detailed how the Media’s Anders Breivik Narrative appears to be:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
E. * Breivik is legally insane<br />
F. * His ‘If It Bleads, It Leads’ justification for Terrorism is Unjustified </blockquote>
<br />
However the Media Censored information such as: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
G. * Whores of the Court Myth of Mental Illness: Insanity is to PharmaPsychiatry what Heresy was to the Inquisition<br />
H. * Media’s If It Bleads, It Leads Population-Terrorism Connection </blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #0a1696;">[3] Masculine Insecurity Human Farming for Profit Kaffir Legal Matrix:</span></span></strong><br />
<br /></blockquote>
<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" style="width: 350px;"><tbody>
<tr><td width="350"><div align="center">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="255" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Xbp6umQT58A" width="350"></iframe><strong><span style="font-size: 80%;"><span style="color: #0a1696;">Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement (<a href="http://youtu.be/Xbp6umQT58A">13:10</a>)</span></span></strong></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<blockquote>
<b>30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court: Habeus Mentem: Affidavit:</b><br />
<br />
[29] <b>MASCULINE (REASON & LOGIC) INSECURITY PARASITE LEECHING LEADERSHIP (SIC)</b> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
The male does not <i>have</i> an erection, like a property or a permanent quality (although how many men wish to <i>have</i> one is anybody’s guess). The penis is in a state of erection, as long as the man is in a state of excitement. If for one reason or another something interferes with this excitement, the man has nothing. And in contrast to practically all other kinds of behaviour, the erection cannot be faked. George Groddek, one of the most outstanding, although unknown, psychoanalysts, used to comment that a man, after all, is a man for only a few minutes; most of the time he is a little boy. Of course, man does not become a little boy in his total being, but precisely in that aspect which for many a man is the proof that he is a man. It is not, then, surprising that the anxieties of men and women refer to different spheres; the man's concerning his ego, his prestige, his value in the eyes of the woman….” – <i><b>Sex & Character</b></i>, Erich Fromm<br />
<br />
[30] Masculine Insecurity is not necessarily a masculine phenomena: <br />
<br />
[31] I refer to the concept of ‘Logic and Reason Insecurity’ as ‘masculine insecurity’ because the majority of the worlds cultures have and continue to be patriarchal, the drivers of those cultures were men; (2) The concepts of ‘reason’ and ‘logic’ have been, and are described as masculine strengths, whereas emotion and intuition are ‘feminine’ strengths. <br />
<br />
Robert McElvaine: In <i><b><a href="http://www.fotim.ac.za/fotim_conferences/genderconf/papers/mcelvaine_paper.pdf" target="_blank">Eve’s Seed: Masculine Insecurity, Metaphor, and the Shaping of History</a></b></i>, and <i><b>Eve’s Seed: Biology, the Sexes and the Course of History</b></i>, McElvaine described it thus: </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Karl Marx had it wrong. Class has, to be sure, been a major factor in history; but class itself is a derivative concept that is based on the ultimate causative power in history: sex. Marx’s famous formulation must be revised: The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of struggles based on the division of our species into two sexes, jealousies emanating from this division, exaggerations of the differences between the sexes, misunderstandings about sexual reproductive power, and metaphors derived from sex. Together, these closely related matters constitute the most important, but largely neglected, set of motive forces in human history. Control -- or the claim of control -- over the means of <b>reproduction</b> has been even more fundamental to history than has control of the means of <b>production</b>. ..<br />
<br />
[..] Sexually insecure men often seek validation of their manhood by pursuing power. This is one of the reasons that the notawoman definition of manhood has had such an impact throughout history. All men do not suffer from such sexual insecurity, but those who do have frequently made their way into positions of power and so have had a disproportionate influence on the shaping of cultures and institutions…<br />
<br />
[..] The real importance of insecure masculinity, again, is that those men who suffer from it are most apt to seek power in order to compensate for their self doubts. Sexually linked motivations have been evident in men engaging in war since the earliest times.</blockquote>
<br />
Masculine Insecure Parasite Leeching Feminism is even more psychologically, intellectually and culturally insecure than its patriarchal counterpart; whereas Masculine Security/Radical Transparency Masculinity is best exemplified by Ray Dalio (Blackwater Associates) and Brad Blanton (Radical Honesty) and Masculine Secure Feminism would probably be best exemplified by Mimi Silbert (Delancey Street Foundation) and in an actual Matriarchy, I would imagine the Mosuo in South West China, and many pre-Industrial Aryan societies – cultural paradigms which are and were focussed on logic, reason and living in harmony with nature and resolving grievances publicly, as opposed to by fake public relations, would be good examples. <br />
<br />
[32] <b>Masculine Insecurity Obstructs Radical Transparency Communication Problem Solving</b>.<br />
<br />
Masculine Insecurity is the opposite of Radical Transparency: It is the psychological and intellectual inability to constructively and sincerely listen and engage in a search for the truth, with individuals whom you may disagree with. A desire to silence and ignore ideas which threaten the insecure masculine identity. Radical Transparency demands non-hierarchical recognition of all criticism and ideas and criticism are judged on their merit , not the individuals socio-political status, because its ultimate focus is Problem Solving . Masculine Insecurity (the opposite of Radical Transparency) only addresses criticism from those who are deemed socio-political peers; and if so, the discussion of the criticism is always discussed within the approved ‘masculine insecurity’ worldview parasite leeching ‘<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMPAfDHEFbQ" target="_blank">Left Wing vs. Right Wing Political Control’ paradigm</a> . The goal of the criticism is not problem solving or to resolve a damaged relationship, but simply propaganda warfare in the battle for Bullshitting the Public to garner more psychological, intellectual or political slaves and cannon fodder for the Left or Right Wing Parasite Leeching ‘Leader’ (sic).<br />
<br />
It is not feminism that is the source of Western Civilisation’s destruction, but Masculine Insecurity (whether patriarchal or feminist is irrelevant). Masculine Insecurity is the root psychological and intellectual problem that obstructs Western civilisation from confronting the Parasite Leeching Economic, Intellectual and Psychological Paradigm that is the source of its impending ecological destruction, by means of overpopulation (third world immigration) and overconsumption (<a href="http://www.jasonbrent.weebly.com/" target="_blank">Peak Oil</a> and <a href="http://www.nnrscarcity.com/" target="_blank">Peak Non Renewable Natural Resources</a>). <br />
<br />
[33] Masculine Insecurity is the cognitive foundation of the anti-Meritocratic Parasite Leeching Leadership (sic) paradigm. It is the Root Cause of Overpopulation and Overconsumption: It Propagandizes on behalf of an exponential growth of Parasite Leeching -- ‘walking penis procreation’ overpopulation and ‘<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9167657690296627941" target="_blank">consume to demonstrate the size of my consumption penis</a>’ overconsumption -- worldview.<br />
<br />
[36] Former Judge Jason G. Brent, <i><b><a href="http://www.jasonbrent.weebly.com/" target="_blank">Humans: An Endangered Species</a></b></i>: “We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc.; you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population, an ACT OF WAR.”<br />
<br />
[37] It is self-evident that humans live on a planet with finite resources, and that resource scarcity is a major source of conflict. Hence to reduce conflict and to save resources that are vital to industrial civilisation would require earthly beings to control population growth and conserve vital resources for future generations. However the exact opposite has occurred. The worlds most valuable form of energy: oil has been squandered on predominantly ‘shitty’ products, and vital non-renewable natural resources upon which industrial civilisation relies upon, have been mined by world leaders drunk on masculine insecurity, pissing the planets resources away to figuratively <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9167657690296627941" target="_blank">extend the size of their penises</a>! <br />
<br />
[38] <b>Masculine Insecurity’s Greatest Weapon: Parasite Leech’s Brood Sows ‘wombs’</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b>Houari Boumediene, President of Algeria, at the United Nations, 1974</b>: “The wombs of our women will give us victory.” [“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” (Boumediene was an ardent supporter of the ANC and SWAPO)]<br />
<br />
<b>Yasser Arafat: Palestinian Womb is his people’s greatest asset</b> [Arnon Soffer, a geography professor at Israel's Haifa University and a lecturer at the Israeli Army's Staff and Command college, first warned of the impending Jewish demographic minority in the 1980s, but was widely dismissed. He predicted Arabs would outnumber Jews in both Israel proper and the occupied territories by 2010. In February 2001, the night of his election, Sharon sent an aide to ask Soffer for a copy of his 1987 treatise about the demographic threat to Israel; it was the same study that had led Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to declare in the late 1980s that the "Palestinian womb" was his people's greatest weapon.]<br />
<br />
<b>Nelson Mandela’s ANC: ANC ‘Operation Production’ Policy:</b> African women forced (I) to have sex with ANC cadres, & (2) not allowed to use contraception. Contravention meant detention, 'Apartheid agent' People’s Court trial & sentence of Necklacing, incl. broken bottles shoved up their vagina. [Johannes Harnischfeger, <i><b><a href="http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2009/12/ancs-embrace-of-occult-politics.html" target="_blank">Witchcraft and the State in South Africa</a></b></i> (*German version of published in Anthropopos, 95/ 2000, S. 99-112): “Especially evening assemblies girls had to attend as well: “They would come into the house and tell us we should go. They didn't ask your mother they just said ‘come let's go.’ You would just have to go with them. They would threaten you with their belts and ultimately you would think that if you refused, they would beat you. Our parents were afraid of them” (quoted by Delius 1996:189). All those opposing the wishes of the young men were reminded, that it was every woman’s obligation to give birth to new “soldiers”, in order to replace those warriors killed in the liberation struggle. The idiom of the adolescents referred to these patriotic efforts as “operation production”. Because of exactly this reason it was forbidden for the girls to use contraceptives. (Delius 1996:189; Niehaus 1999:250)”]<br />
<br />
<b>New Black Panther Party: Dr. Khalid Muhammad</b>: Kill the White Woman as the White Man’s Military Manufacturing Center rolling out reinforcement from between her legs: In Dr. Khalid Abdul Muhammad’s 1993 <a href="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/456363/khallid_muhammads_speech_kill_the_white_man/" target="_blank">'Kill the White Man' speech</a>, at Kean College in Union Township, New Jersey, he stated among others: “Kill the women cause the women are the military manufacturing center; cause every nine months they lay down on their backs and reinforcement rolls out from between their legs. So shut down the military manufacturing center, by killing the white woman.”<br />
<br />
[65] Unfortunately, the root source of this ‘terrorism‘ in my personal opinion, lies in the corruption of the legal system, more specifically in what I refer to as KAFFIR CULTURE, LAWYERS AND LEGISLATION: the KAFFIR LEGAL MATRIX. We live in a legal matrix that has not incorporated the scientific reality into its ‘right to breed‘ legislation, constitutions, bill of rights and responsibilities or treaties, that the earth is flat, resources are finite, and breeding wars should be acknowledged as ACTS OF WAR. Unlike the corrupt Catholic Church who at least had the honour to acknowledge the criticisms of Galileo and Luther, the current corrupt legal religious matrix sale of innocence indulgences establishment, have no such honourable intentions. In the absence of dead and mangled bodies, blood and gore, any modern day Luther or Galileo‘s 95 Theses would never see the light of day; and frequently even if the Luther or Galileo accomplish the dead and mangled bodies prerequisite, the Kaffir Legal Matrix‘s political psychology denies them their day in court.<br />
<br />
<b>[66] Excerpt from Complaint to International Criminal Court (PDF):</b><br />
<br />
<b>[d] Radical Honesty SA definitions of the word „Kaffir‟, relevant to this matter</b>:<br />
<br />
[i] <b>‘Kaffir Behaviour’: Cultural Beliefs and Procreation Behaviour Definition</b>: Individuals who either independently or as a result of their cultural value systems, are incapable of, or unwilling to, practice sexual restraint and procreation responsibility; who consequently breed cockroach-prolifically without personal financial or psychological responsibility to, or emotional concern for, their offspring; and/or who abuse women and children as sexual or economic slaves procreated for such purpose; and/or whose cultural ideal of manhood endorses non-consensual sex (rape) as their sexual slavery entitlement, etc.<br />
<br />
[ii] <b>‘Kaffir Etymology’</b>: Original Etymological Definition for “Kaffir”: The word kāfir is the active participle of the Semitic root K-F-R “to cover”. As a pre-Islamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting; as they till the earth and “cover up” the seeds; which is why earth tillers are referred to as “Kuffar.” Thus, the word kāfir implies the meaning “a person who hides or covers”; To conceal, deny, hide or cover the truth.<br />
<br />
[iii] <b>‘Kaffir Legislation’ = Inalienable Right to Breed Poverty, Misery and War legislation; pretending it advocates for “peace and human rights”</b>. Kaffir Law/Legislation provides citizens with the Inalienable ‗Right to Breed‘ [and 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, etc, etc. Kaffir Legislation covers up that an ‗Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control policy + <a href="http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_from_shortage_to_longage.html" target="_blank">No Social Welfare policies or practices provides for an equilibrium carrying capacity; whereas Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control within a welfare state, results in Runaway Growth, and ultimately greater misery, poverty and war</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court: Amicus Curiae: Affidavit:</b><br />
<br />
[3](4) My Guerrilla Lawfare Worldview: The Paradox of the Masculine Insecurity <a href="http://youtu.be/gHAnrXCvavc" target="_blank">Human Farming</a> Kaffir Matrix Court: Radical Transparency Problem Solving is to the Masculine Insecurity Kaffir Matrix Court; what Martin Luther or Galileo Galilei were to the Catholic Church. 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, etc, etc. <br />
<br />
(i) The $64,000 question: Why does the Masculine Insecurity <a href="http://youtu.be/gHAnrXCvavc" target="_blank">Human Farming</a> Kaffir Legal Matrix not require citizens to voting or breeding licences???<br />
<br />
(ii) Kaffir Legislation covers up that an ‘Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control policy + <a href="http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_from_shortage_to_longage.html" target="_blank">No Social Welfare policies or practices provides for an equilibrium carrying capacity</a>; whereas Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control within a welfare state, results in Runaway Growth, and ultimately greater misery, poverty and war . <br />
<br />
(iii) Kaffir Legislation covers up that the Inalienable Right to Vote, or Universal Suffrage for the Ignorant is the road to centralisation of power and tyranny. <br />
<br />
[22] The Applicant is of the view that the main application raises novel questions which are crucial for the future credibility of Western Civilisation’s Masculine Insecurity <a href="http://youtu.be/gHAnrXCvavc" target="_blank">Human Farming</a> Kaffir Legal Matrix conceptualisation of the rule of law and the principle of legality. <br />
<br />
<b>10 May 2012 Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review & Declaratory Orders:</b><br />
<br />
[as in 15 April 2012 application to Oslo Court, point [3](4)]</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #0a1696;">[4] Norwegian Goverments Endorsement for ANC’s Terrorism & Breeding War:</span></span></strong><br />
<br /></blockquote>
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/06/biko-mandela-hero-psych-frantz-fanon.html"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUOtpnpyKYJs_6kl4PiFTeUHlo9HV75Nq5sbyoI3f1zO6e7HwHJEuhCaF2Ze_aZog5ZITLNuhRiO2fh5PyfUj_sRCBtXONt_ji7Mctw9oLshyphenhyphencZx1o8F-aOOEfjO4rlwG4DBw2-nw3dxM/s1600/Biko-Mandela-FFanon-Obama-Breivik-ColonizedMinds_366x479.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 479px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 366px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote>
<b>30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court: Habeus Mentem: Affidavit:</b><br />
<br />
[81-120] ARGUMENT: A case study: How the European politically correct cultural Marxist multicultural Anti-Apartheid movement overthrew Verwoerds Apartheid by means of political terrorism and an African breeding war; and installed the ANC regime that provides SA’s with between 3,000 to 25,000 % worse socio-political government services; & turned white South Africans into African White Refugees.<br />
<br />
<b>15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court: Amicus Curiae: Affidavit:</b><br />
<br />
[39-75] Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee: A Product of (A) European Masculine Insecurity Phallic Enhanced Colonialism and (B) African and Liberal Masculine Insecurity Anti-Apartheid Movement’s ‘Operation Production’ Breeding War<br />
<br />
[44-50] The Competitive Exclusion Principle (Apartheid) was an Act of Political Just War Self Defense to Tragedy of the Breeding War – Act of War – African Commons Exponential Population Growth:<br />
<br />
[51-54] Apartheid Inconvenient Truths Masculine Insecurity Liberals and Anti-Apartheid Movement Lack the Honour to Confront:<br />
<br />
[55-58] Masculine Insecurity Liberal Europe’s Endorsement of African Masculine Insecurity Anti-Apartheid Movement’s ‘Operation Production’ Breeding War:<br />
<br />
[59-75] Masculine Insecurity Liberal Europe’s Endorsement of African Masculine Insecurity Anti-Apartheid Movement’s Parasite Leeching TRC Fraud Social Contract:<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #0a1696;">[5] Norwegian Commitment to Rainbow Race Multiculturism is a Fraud:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<br /></blockquote>
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/06/to-see-farm-is-to-leave-farm-i-was-and.html"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602561562199580802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqRHNzpkI_Lq2hYYNAxnsbOXvkJmpqkKfHE9MO809O2CanE0s8boidqtwnTkAQw_nO7Aki7_JBQgvYvwhL4yAGowAIJdJV2Rmb51C-FDC6YUSOlVZkVZrXKaBzK5cKUKM5aTWbow8YWMs/s1600/Co-Conspirator_NoOneRulesNoOneObeys_338x482.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 482px; margin: 10px 10px 10px 10px; width: 338px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote>
<b>10 May 2012 Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review & Declaratory Orders:</b><br />
<br />
[7-14] <b>B: NO COURTS: RAINBOW MULTICULTURAL / EURO-MONOCULTURAL?</b>:<br />
<br />
[7] A country which sincerely practices Multiculturalism (A) provides its citizens with the right to invoke cultural law which require the application of choice of law rules, as the SA Constitution does in S. 15 (3), 30, 31, and 185 and Apartheid Legislation enshrined; but (B) enforces the rights of citizens from all cultures to invoke cultural law, which ‘Rainbow’ South Africa does not (Radical Honesty culture and Afrikaners (Reits Four) have been denied the right to invoke cultural law, respectively: Radical Honesty Communication culture and Afrikaans/Western Voltarian Satire cultural values); but which Apartheid did allow for all black and white cultures.<br />
<br />
[11] It is the applicants working hypothesis that Norway’s alleged ‘My Rainbow Race’ commitment to Multiculturalism is a hoax; because it is not legally sincere about implementing a multicultural legal system which provides all of Norway citizens from different cultures’ with the right to invoke cultural law – whether Sharia , Zulu or Radical Honoursty – in its courts. The true reality of Norway’s Rainbow Multiculturalism is simply a bullshit-the-public-relations (PR) façade for importing Non-Western immigrants as Labour Party vote-fodder; while deceiving Non-Western immigrants of their true vote-fodder status.<br />
<br />
[14] Liberal ‘Multicultural’ Norwegians are closet white supremacy legal mono-culturalists. While condemning so-called ‘conservatives’ of ‘racism’ for their honest enemy condemnation of non-western cultural practices they consider inferior to ‘white western’ cultural values; liberal Norwegians secretly agree with conservatives, but pretend to support multiculturalism purely to import immigrant voters onto their welfare vote farm slavery plantations; but have no commitment to legislatively providing foreign cultures with the right to invoke cultural law and legally practice their foreign cultures in Norway:<br />
<blockquote>
“The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro’s friend and benefactor; and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political “football game” that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives…. Once the Negro learns to think for himself, he will no longer allow the white liberal to use him as a helpless football in the white man’s crooked game of “power politics.” The white conservatives aren’t friends of the Negro either, but they at least don’t try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them. But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro but pretend that they are smiling. The white liberals are more dangerous than the conservatives; they lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the “smiling” fox.” -- Excerpts from 1963 speech by Malcolm X: “<i><b>God’s Judgement of White America</b></i>.”</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 105%;"><span style="color: #660000;">[D] Respondent’s conduct is a violation of their CCBE Code of Ethics duties:</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
(2.1) <b>Independence</b>: to be totally free and independent from all other influences, including political or media (public relations) influence or pressure; <br />
<br />
(2.2) <b>Honesty</b>: withholding of honest information is a form of lying and deception, and also a violation of the principle that the rule of law requires legislation, including legislative alleged ‘insanity’ legislation to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom ); <br />
<br />
(2.4) <b>Multiculti Legal Respect</b>: Complainant is a paralegal member of the Radical Honesty culture [See: SA Constitutional Court Order by the Chief Justice in CCT 23-10: The Citizen v. Robert McBride on 03 May 2010: “The Chief Justice has issued the following directions: Ms. Lara Johnstone, Member of the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion is admitted as an Amicus Curiae.” (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100718_rhwr-concourt-amicus?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage" target="_blank">Annex A</a>)] and does not think it is too much ‘Multiculti Legal Respect’ to ask for any honest, impartial Lawyer to provide any individual, not just lawyers from ‘legal organisations’ with a fair honest response to their legal application to their court dispute; <br />
<br />
(4.1) <b>Rule of Law Conduct</b>: Demand that the court provide all applicants with honest and clear response from the Court regarding the status of all applications to the court, in terms of the rule of law principle that requires legislation and civil servant decisions to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom ) <br />
<br />
<b>ECHR: Rule of law requires adequately Precise and Accessible Legislation</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote>
In <i><b><a href="http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html">Lithgow & others v United Kingdom</a></b></i>, the European Court of Human Rights held that the rule of law requires provisions of legislation to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law: <br />
<blockquote>
“As regards the phrase "subject to the conditions provided for by law”, it requires in the first place the existence of and compliance with adequately accessible and sufficiently precise domestic legal provisions (see, amongst other authorities, the alone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 31-33, paras. 66-68).”</blockquote>
<br />
Respectfully Submitted <br />
<br />
<br />
Lara Johnstone<br />
Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist<br />
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity<br />
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored<br />
<a href="http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/">http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/</a> <br />
<br />
Annexures: (Not Included: Links provided for download):<br />
[A] SA Constitutional Court Order by the Chief Justice in CCT 23-10 on 03 May 2010 (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100718_rhwr-concourt-amicus">PDF</a>)<br />
[B] 30 Nov 2011 Application to Oslo District Court for a Writ of Habeus Mentem (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/111130_breivik-habeus">PDF</a>)<br />
[C] 15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court to proceed as an Amicus Curiae (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120414_amicus">PDF</a>)<br />
[D] 10 May 2012 Appl. to Norway Supreme Court for Review & Declaratory Orders (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120510_nsc-rev">PDF</a>)<br />
[E] 15 May 2012 Error in Supreme Crt Dep Sec. Gen Response to Applic for Review (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120515_nsc-nygaard">PDF</a>)<br />
[F] 17 May 2012 Interpol Complaint: Obstruction of Env. & Ind. Rights Justice (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120517_interpol">PDF</a>)<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: 90%;"> » » » » [Advokat Tone Linn Thingvold: Tone Linn Thingvold (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_tlt?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtG9f6VBUOlltT1N8Ac6ErcUDXqRs_fylHhOU7AdBjKS_M0DYi1w9KvZYaPYvHHlNBbXwG9ZG90IWSVW1Jnv5Ouo-V-9VlTCNwp2oAbC4QHOWYFTZTPydpX4k9n-pVGCvfG7BrlvYR9kI/s1600/12-06-17_Tone+Linn+Thingvold_Advokat+Tone+Linn+Thingvold.png">PoS</a>] | Advokat Fagermo: Tor Magnus Fagermo (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_tmg?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEillWeYA3edxsbbZ7rdt9NCXihZzyTZih_N3o1oGTryMKK01I6aLT6700xfVfCSEMJG_RMRXlIEegPZVhDpi_iWejiyMn6gM0ndBXDM6I_auRIPrvA3jh5-8KzU_yqiu8_enlw3PKtiLVE/s1600/12-06-17_Tor+Magnus+Fagermo_Advokat+Fagermo.png">PoS</a>] | Advokatfirma Sjødin & Co. DA: Tore Helseth Høyer (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_thh?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGKJq1xzgHL5OjLdmIL4qf9xhyphenhyphennd-EywWc55z7qtIAFC3o8BWCUO7RpA6MXPUaISpGX-9NNJ74uhK93N5aH9CUQOsK5I1f-Nf-ZdzPODKvw0yrVXhrmaWs1zi6I0yiEQcmnKdU4RBX6V8/s1600/12-06-17_Tore+Helseth+Hoyer_Advokatfirma+Sj%25C3%25B8din+%2526+Co.+DA.png">PoS</a>] | Advokatfirma Pettersen Vestbakke & Co DA: Tore Hilding Pettersen (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_thp?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4bA9HpoICo92rRGruifgFA2suen9dY36rYkSoe9UeOltDBH0pHjQA2Cytnijf8drp7E2w7ze0w-mLhvp4QoyJm91R2OUYsqUxL9GgLDHX09oENuHXZLyi37RSuLsPX95VOsO_c71HAhQ/s1600/12-06-17_Tore+Hilding+Pettersen_Advokatfirma+Pettersen+Vestbakke+%2526+Co+DA.png">PoS</a>] | Sørlandsadvokatene DA: Tore Øydne (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_to?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL5Uxc7Jxrn9zmZIA9Q9b1P98oqUWD4mloxqBFTUXEL8sA3KvVQbqlJGt1v3PU6tZgUjzfV3reAqaeFTLyGmuxZYhBzw4Zt6KpCXLFLMwjb4tVDW4_9ag4cUyFxPjTIalcuDbUtBKW3iU/s1600/12-06-17_Tore+Oydne_S%25C3%25B8rlandsadvokatene+DA.png">PoS</a>] | Advokathuset Fredrikstad: Torgeir Røinås Pedersen (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_trp?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5jWREYIFYsWcIGN0Fa70urwLmWevgDKEZMg1NeNHf2hVh_oGpOyzh5VpKqi6X05BjJDVDwatF-fg9gNV5F-C6PpNdU9szbdNnJOQFWOwNXxUNPEDUxOxFTN-ClW1BXhWHrfILJ6RN7d8/s1600/12-06-17_Torgeir+roinas+Pedersen_Advokathuset+Fredrikstad.png">PoS</a>] | Advokatfirmaet Velund & Co: Toril Wirkola Karlsen (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_twk?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioR_YhrGrEd6VXq_BT3bTR4c7wlsR3q7qY73AK8IwvnS2uWktFmVv70Xx4-W1Wg5qtjayCJINDkl-R2b7hwr8NTjcvhmqcaLMZ4e5Mu4uU8A-ry-5IRzV5OeegKTMob6Tpf744JMMPyME/s1600/12-06-17_Toril+Wirkola+Karlsen_Advokatfirmaet+Velund+%2526+Co.png">PoS</a>] | Advokatfirmaet Torunn Haug AS: Torunn Haug (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_th2?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8LpE7O6oDZWbMwX98b1Sb2CiehxbZLYMMBF_5yWBQMkqNwssdKGVZDIGAW9HQOKK-kDBAFD_LcfwtCYGmD37z8jmXmbboWDsM6q7CErUCvBcodDllyMNU2QWt9hhPSDYBruc7d4QZAzM/s1600/12-06-17_Torunn+Haug_Advokatfirmaet+Torunn+Haug+AS.png">PoS</a>] | Advokatfellesskapet Falch: Tove Laursen (<a href="http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120611_advfor_tl?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage">PDF</a>) [<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoTVQwf16cbyTCcjKIKvBMw01F54rwrXQI8lk5b1-xDFI8B_58wy7181sGsiUE3y9iMFr6KTElgJfyWvKXf4tnuIcMIzuvXczMHC4BEs-dyXV5K7Gk3Oq-u0UY80eyS4AGvUV7bU_OjCc/s1600/12-06-17_Tove+Laursen_Advokatfellesskapet+Falch.png">PoS</a>]]</span></strong></blockquote>
</div>
<br />
<div align="center">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG35_mG6caC4KBxsQJyTNhzHyA6-FQtZYnz5IBLl54ORu_a-boz0PBm8YdS-VFQ4KFCJO7VNfP5YqY4Wihq9GEzTHHgCMI0I_4LLD7wdGKQFqubGiB-gXfD5pJ4p6vMDhnlhn-1EMJtAY/s1600/TolerantNorwayPolPsychBreivik_ApartheidMandelaTreason_897x596.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621010682726559122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWMyLbwkIUbk76EGOkStxXbt3U23JYE9udiDNPVgJhiFUsKD5W1nEsV6m48kuuqlr2JXWqlLk-QJLqc3tMJKd8_gbfiWLODJK-lckkTSqwxEgyVg254soN3Q-uLJydzBqjHQfNwpjbdoE/s1600/TolerantNorwayPolPsychBreivik_ApartheidMandelaTreason_600x399.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 399px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 600px;" /></a></div>
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327922598170048610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_syvmtcM8catqrBrIl4t-figvTVgyXhfnKOHVRSG-t452g5OUoUTQ3VDYVnqi1lHb-0ywKhrSUtEogXOF5kQV1rdWru90G-xQsKaxKvqgdFGwElieDRso7LwcD3-CsWiDatYBk22HqdA/s400/400_BlackLine.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 7px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 620px;" />Andrea Muhrrteynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13455575591213217060noreply@blogger.com0