ECHR: Oslo District Courts Breivik Necessity Judgement is Discriminatory & Ineffective Remedy

ECHR: European Court of Human Rights Application: Oslo District Courts Breivik Necessity Judgement is Discriminatory & Ineffective Remedy

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.

19 January 2013 | Ecofeminist v Breivik | Andrea Muhrrteyn

Human Rights Violations complained of:

• Discrimination: 24 August 2012: Oslo District Court: Judge Wenche Arntzen: Norway v. Anders Breivik Necessity Judgement

• Discrimination and Denied Right to an Effective Remedy: Supreme Court: Secretary General Gunnar Bergby: 10 September 2012 Decision

• Discrimination and Denied Right to an Effective Remedy: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Head of Division: Berit Sollie: 15 November 2012 Ruling

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).

Supv. Comm. for Judges: Ruling: Breivik Case Irregularities Complaints Against Judges Opsahl, Arntzen and Schei

Supv. Comm. for Judges: Ruling: Breivik Case Irregularities Complaints Against Judges Opsahl, Arntzen and Schei



Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminist vs. Breivik |02 November 2012

[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.

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'.

The decision by the Committee is in Norwegian (I have not translated all of it yet): Judge Opsahl (PDF), Judge Arntzen (PDF), Justice Schei (PDF).

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

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

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

Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminist vs. Breivik | 27 August 2012

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

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

Excerpts from Notice of Motion.

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

[Update] RettsNorge/JustNorway: Herman Berge: ‘Corrupt Appointment of Judges renders Breivik Court Case Null & Void’

[Update] RettsNorge/JustNorway: Herman Berge: ‘Corrupt Appointment of Judges renders Breivik Court Case Null & Void’

Updated & Accurate Translation:

Herman J. Berge | Retts Norge | 05 July 2012 (Updated & Translated from 02 July)

Herman J Berge 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 purpose 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.

In the Updated and Accurately Translated Article: MAIN HEARING IN BREIVIK-CASE IS INVALID, Mr. Berge writes, among others:

“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.

[..] Allow me to warn those of you who have not yet discovered it, that Mr. Engebretsen’s special private procedure, 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.

As you will see from the above, we are not faced with a random assignment of cases, but rather with a deliberate unlawful selection of judges, which in itself is a confirmation of a judicial system and a court in decay.”

Complaint against Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges

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).

06 June Update: Letter to Supv. Comm. of Judges

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v Breivik | 30 May 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:10 PM
To: 'Supv. Comm. Judges'
Cc: Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints; NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court; NO Oslo District Court: Admin; Judge Wenche Arntzen (**@domstol.no)
Subject: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: Klage: Judge Wenche Arntzen: Brudd på: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12.

Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges,
National Courts Administration,
Tel: 73 56 70 00 | Fax: 73 56 70 01
E-mail: Supv. Comm. Judges (**@domstol.no)

CC: Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen
Judge: Oslo District Court
Postboks 8023 Dep., 0030 Oslo | C.J. Hambros Plass 4, 0164 Oslo
Sentralbord 22 03 52 00 | Tel/Faks: 22 03 5212 | 22 03 53 54
E-post: **@domstol.no, **@postmottak@domstol.no
E-post: Judge Wenche Arntzen (**@domstol.no)

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).

Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges

Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: 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).

06 June Update: Letter to Supv. Comm. of Judges

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 30 May 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:07 PM
To: 'Supv. Comm. Judges'
Cc: Judge Nina Opsahl; NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court; NO Oslo District Court: Admin
Subject: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: Klage: Judge Nina Opsahl: Brudd på: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12.

Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges,
National Courts Administration,
Tel: 73 56 70 00 | Fax: 73 56 70 01
E-mail: Supv. Comm. Judges (**@domstol.no)

CC: Judge Nina Opsahl
Judge: Oslo District Court
Postboks 8023 Dep., 0030 Oslo | C.J. Hambros Plass 4, 0164 Oslo
Sentralbord 22 03 52 00 Tel/Faks: 22 03 5212 | 22 03 53 54
E-post: **@domstol.no, **@domstol.no
E-post: Judge Nina Opsahl (**@domstol.no)

Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: 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).

Complaint against Judge Wenche Arntzen: Violation of CCBE Code of Ethics

Complaint against Judge Wenche Arntzen: 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)

29-05-12: 11:05: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-2012: 12:19: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee
29-05-12: 13:08: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-2012: 13:08: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee
29-05-12: 13:39: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-2012: 13:39: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee



Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 28 May 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:05 PM
To: 'Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints'; 'Disciplinary Committee'; 'Judge Moe'
Cc: NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court (**@domstol.no); NO Oslo District Court: Admin (**@domstol.no); Judge Wenche Arntzen (**@domstol.no)
Subject: Klage: Wenche E Arntzen: Brudd på: 2.1, 2.2, 2,4 og 4,1 CCBEs etiske regler | Complaint: Wenche E Arntzen: Violation of: 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 & 4,1 of CCBE Code of Ethics

Disciplinary Complaints
The Norwegian Bar Association | Den Norske Advokatforening
Email: Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints (**@advokatforeningen.no)

Head: Judge Ernst Moe
Sec: Beate Sundstrøm
Disciplinary Committee | Disiplinærnemnden
Disciplinary Committee: (**@jus.no)
E-post: Judge Moe (**@domstol.no)

CC: Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen
c/o Registrar of the Oslo District Court
E-post: **@domstol.no, **@domstol.no
E-post: Judge Wenche Arntzen (**@domstol.no)

Complaint against Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: 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) | Klage mot dommer Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen Brudd på: 2.1 (Uavhengighet), 2.2 (ærlighet), 2,4 (Multiculti Juridisk Respekt) og 4,1 (Rule of Law gjennomføre) CCBEs etiske regler (norsk oversettelse)

Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: Violation of CCBE Code of Ethics

Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: 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)

29-05-12: 11:17: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-12: 12:25: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee
29-05-12: 13:11: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-12: 13:11: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee
29-05-12: 13:41: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-12: 13:41: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 28 May 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:02 PM
To: 'Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints'; 'Disciplinary Committee'; 'Judge Moe'
Cc: NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court (**@domstol.no); NO Oslo District Court: Admin (**@domstol.no); Judge Nina Opsahl (**@domstol.no)
Subject: Klage: Nina Opsahl: Brudd på: 2.1, 2.2, 2,4 og 4,1 CCBEs etiske regler | Complaint: Nina Opsahl: Violation of: 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 & 4,1 of CCBE Code of Ethics

Disciplinary Complaints
The Norwegian Bar Association | Den Norske Advokatforening
Email: Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints (**@advokatforeningen.no)

Head: Judge Ernst Moe
Sec: Beate Sundstrøm
Disciplinary Committee | Disiplinærnemnden
Disciplinary Committee: (**@jus.no)
E-post: Judge Moe (**@domstol.no)

CC: Judge Nina Opsahl
c/o Registrar of the Oslo District Court
E-post: **@domstol.no, **@domstol.no
E-post: Judge Nina Opsahl (**@domstol.no)

Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: 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) | Klage mot dommer Nina Opsahl Brudd på: 2.1 (Uavhengighet), 2.2 (ærlighet), 2,4 (Multiculti Juridisk Respekt) og 4,1 (Rule of Law gjennomføre) CCBEs etiske regler (norsk oversettelse)

[Update]: EcoFeminist Applic to Oslo Court: Breivik be Charged with Treason & Firing Squad if Convicted

NO v. Breivik: EcoFeminist Application to proceed as In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amicus Curiae

The application served on Court Officials on 15 April requests Norway to charge Breivik with Treason, if convicted in a free and fair trial equivalent to the Apartheid trial provided to Nelson Mandela, that Breivik and the Applicant be executed by Firing Squad [Radical Honoursty culture: EcoFeminist Honour Duel Challenge: Ask Not What You can do for your Country or Europeans; Ask What you can do for Masculine Honour and Integrity].

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 14 April 2012

[Notice: Ack Receipts: Crt|Pros|Def]
From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 1:01 AM
To: NO Oslo District Court: Admin; NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court
Cc: NO: Emb: Pta: Amb Tor Hildan; NO: Crt: Breivik: Geir Lippestad; NO: Lippestad: Tord; NO: Lippestad: Odd; Pros Holden: Min. Justice: Greta Faremo; Pros Holden: Min. Justice: Morten Ruud; Pros Holden: Politi Directoratet
Subject: [2] OSLO CRT REGISTRAR: 11-188627 MED-05: Notice of Application: Amicus Curiae from Norwegian Jus Sanguinis African White Refugee
Importance: High

TO: Registrar of the Oslo District Court
TO: NORWAY: Prosecutor Svein Holden (C/O Police & Dept. of Justice)
TO: DEFENDANT: Anders Breivik

IN THE OSLO DISTRICT COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY

Case #: 11-188627
MED-05

NO v. Breivik: EcoFeminist Application to proceed as In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amicus Curiae

NO v. Breivik: EcoFeminist Application to proceed as In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amicus Curiae

The application served on Court Officials on 15 April requests Norway to charge Breivik with Treason, if convicted in a free and fair trial equivalent to the Apartheid trial provided to Nelson Mandela, that Breivik and his Radical Honoursty accomplice, the Applicant be executed by Firing Squad.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 14 April 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 5:42 PM
To: NO Oslo District Court: Admin (**@domstol.no); NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court (**@domstol.no)
Cc: NO: Crt: Breivik: Lippestad (**@advokatlippestad.no); NO: Lippestad: Tord (**@advokatlippestad.no); NO: Lippestad: Odd (**@advokatlippestad.no); Pros Holden: Tonje Meinich (**@jd.dep.no); Pros Holden: Grete Faremo (**@jd.dep.no); Pros Holden: Min. Justice (**@jd.dep.no); Pros Holden: Morten Ruud (**@jd.dep.no); Pros Holden: Politiet (**@politiet.no); Pros Holden: Politiet (**@namsfogden.no); Pros Holden: Politiet (**@politiet.no); Pros Holden: Politiet (**@politiet.no)
Subject: OSLO CRT REGISTRAR: 11-188627 MED-05: Notice of Application: Amicus Curiae from Norwegian Jus Sanguinis African White Refugee
Importance: High

Notice to Oslo Court: Request Date Judge to Provide Ruling on Breivik Habeus Mentem (Right to Legal Sanity) Application

Notice to Oslo Court: Request Date Judge to Provide Ruling on Breivik Habeus Mentem Application

15 December 2011 | Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik

From: Lara Johnstone

Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 2:56 PM

To: NO: Crt: Oslo District Court: Tinghus Sentralbord; NO Oslo District Court: Tingrett Postmottak

Cc: NO Emb: Pta: Amb Tor Hildan; NO: Crt: Forensic Medicine: Tarjei Rygnestad; NO: Crt: Breivik: Lippestad; NO: Lippestad: Tord; NO: Lippestad: Odd; NO: Prison: Ila: Knut Bjarkeid; NO: Prison: Ila: Post; NO: Crt: SupremeCrt: Chief Justice Tore Schei; NO Police Security Svc; NO Police: Oslo; NO Police Directorate; NO: Police: Justice Dept; NO: MinJustice: Grete Faremo; NO: MinJustice: Pol Advisor: Astrid Bergmal; NO: PM: JStoltenberg: Chief of Staff: Karl Schjott-Pedersen; NO: PM: JStoltenberg: State Sec: Tor Brostigen

Subject: [2] Oslo District Court: Norway v. Breivik: Application: Respondent: Judge Nina Opsahl

Importance: High

Oslo District Court: Registrar,

In the matter between: KINGDOM OF NORWAY v. ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK

Application between:
LARA JOHNSTONE Applicant
JUDGE NINA OPSAHL First Respondent
ANDERS BREVICK Second Respondent
GEIR LIPPESTAD Third Respondent
SYNNE SERHEIM Fourth Respondent
TORGEIR HUSBY Fifth Respondent
TARJEI RYGNESTAD Sixth Respondent
SVEIN HOLDEN Seventh Respondent

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.

Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

Oslo District Court: Norway v. Breivik: Judge Nina Opsahl: Application for Writ of Habeus Mentem & Certiorari/Review

Oslo District Court: Norway v. Breivik: Judge Nina Opsahl: Application for Writ of Habeus Mentem & Certiorari/Review

01 December 2011 | Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 8:35 PM
To: NO Oslo District Court: Sentralbord; NO Oslo District Court: Admin
Subject: Oslo District Court: Norway v. Breivik: Application: Respondent: Judge Nina Opsahl

ATTENTION:

REGISTRAR & FIRST & SECOND RESPONDENTS
Registrar of the Oslo District Court
Sorenskriver og administrasjon
Postadresse: Postboks 8023 Dep., 0030 Oslo
Besøksadresse: C.J. Hambros Plass 4, 0164 Oslo
Sentralbord 22 03 52 00
Tel/Faks: 22 03 5212 | 22 03 53 54
E-post: **********@domstol.no
E-post: **********@domstol.no

In the matter between:

KINGDOM OF NORWAY v. ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK

Application between:
LARA JOHNSTONE Applicant
JUDGE NINA OPSAHL First Respondent
ANDERS BREVICK Second Respondent
GEIR LIPPESTAD Third Respondent
SYNNE SERHEIM Fourth Respondent
TORGEIR HUSBY Fifth Respondent
TARJEI RYGNESTAD Sixth Respondent
SVEIN HOLDEN Seventh Respondent

Please find attached for your attention the following PDF documents: Application in terms of Article’s 2, 4, 85, 100, 110a, 110b, of Norwegian Constitution; and Article’s 1, 5, 6, 9, 13 and 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

• Filing Sheet
  
• Notice of Motion
  
• Founding Affidavit

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the applicant herewith applies to this court for an order from Judge Nina Opsahl that (A) Anders Breivik be provided a copy of this application for his consideration, and to be ordered to provide the court with his personal written response to the application, to be documented into the court record. (B) If approved by Anders Breivik, additional orders as follows: [I] A 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. Please take notice that the accompanying affidavit of Lara Johnstone will be used in support of this application. 

KINDLY place this matter before Judge Nina Opsahl for her consideration at her earliest convenience. 

Dated at George, Southern Cape, South Africa, this 29th day of November, 2011. Lara Johnstone, Pro Se Honourable Transparency Copies: (A) Honourable Tore Schei, Chief Justice (B) King Harald V, King of Norway (C) Hon. Jens Stoltenberg, Prime Minister (D) Hon. Dag Terje Andersen, President (E) Gen. Harald Sunde, NATO: Military Comm.: Chief of Staff, Chief of Defence (F) HE Tor Christian Hildan, Ambassador of Norway, Pretoria (G) Professor Duarte Nuno Vieira (Portugal), European Council of Legal Medicine: Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal, I.P.[1]; and The International Academy of Legal Medicine[2] 

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 (In accordance to Common Law, I also consider corporations to be without legal standing, as they have no mind, body, legs, eyes, emotions; and hence are legal fictions). 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), 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.