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 JohnstoneSent: 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:
- The date my application is to be submitted to Judge Opsahl, or the relevant Judge, for their consideration.
- 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
_______________________
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.
IN THE OSLO DISTRICT COURT OF JUDGE NINA OPSAHL
KINGDOM OF NORWAY
Case#: __________
In the matter between:
| KINGDOM OF NORWAY And ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK (AKA ANDREW BERWICK, SIGURD JORSALFAR) | Plaintiff Defendant |
Application between:
| LARA JOHNSTONE And JUDGE NINA OPSAHL ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK GEIR LIPPESTAD SYNNE SERHEIM TORGEIR HUSBY TARJEI RYGNESTAD SVEIN HOLDEN | Applicant First Respondent Second Respondent Third Respondent Fourth Respondent Fifth Respondent Sixth Respondent Seventh Respondent |
__________________________________________________
NOTICE OF MOTION:
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
__________________________________________________
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.
Writ of Habeus Mentem Orders as follows:[1] I, Lara Johnstone be appointed as Mr. Breivik’s ‘Political Necessity’ Pro Bono (expenses only required) legal and psychological representative, to:(A) act as Mr. Breivik’s paralegal assistant in aiding him to represent himself in accordance to the Political Necessity defence; by means of research, contacting relevant Norwegian and International expert witnesses to testify to relevant issues documented in his manifesto, research, etc;
(B) act as Mr. Breivik’s paralegal forensic psychology advisor in aiding Mr. Breivik to expose the fraudulent allegations against him -– questioning his Mens Real political necessity criminal culpability on 22 July 2011 -- by those practicing political psychiatry , intent on denying Breivik, his Political Necessity Treason trial.
(C) in accordance to Radical Honoursty socio-political-legal cultural practices of honour; to support Mr. Breivik to be charged with treason and if found guilty, in a free and fair trial -- of the same standard as provided to Nelson Mandela by the Apartheid South African Government -- to be executed along with my client, by firing squad.
[2] Attorney Lippestad shall be retained as representative on Norwegian court administrative rules and procedures;
[3] the court is to take notice of Breivik’s intention to plead to the Political Necessity Defence to the relevant charges, in accordance to his motivations to disturb the liberty and security of the Storting (in defence of the multi-culti political elite’s disturbances of the Storting by means of massive illegal foreign immigration), and consequently requests to be charged in accordance to Article 85: Treason.
[4] Attorney Lippestad shall make relevant arrangements for me to travel to Norway to assist Mr. Breivik in his legal defence in accordance to [1-3].
Writ of Certiorari Review as follows:
[II] The writ of Certiorari/Review of the Psychiatric Evaluation Report as to the Mens Rea criminal liability of Anders Breivik’s political terrorism criminal acts, on 22 July 2011; shall order.[1] Psychiatrists: Synne Serheim and Torgeir Husby to provide me with:
(A) A copy of their cultural Marxist ‘political correct’ Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation Report, for my investigation and discussion with Mr. Breivik’ and examination into his Mens Rea state of mind on 22 July 2011, in accordance to Radical Honoursty, Radical Honesty, Thomas Szassz, Frantz Fanon, Erich Fromm and other related relevant psychological schools of thought. Upon completion of such examination I shall provide Dr. Tarjei Rygnestad, Norwegian Commission of Forensic Medicine with my ‘non’ cultural Marxist politically incorrect report for his consideration in this mater;
(B) in the event their cultural Marxist politically correct report does not clarify this matter: the particular psychological schools of thought they used to base their socio-political and psycho-cultural foundations upon in examining Mr. Breivik’s socio-political and psycho-cultural Mens Rea and Actus Reus motivations for his political necessity criminal terrorism acts conducted on 22 July 2011.
(C) In the event that their cultural Marxist politically correct report does not clarify the matter: their particular subjective and objective tests for Mens Rea (criminal culpability):Subjective and objective tests for Mens Rea:
The test for the existence of mens rea may be:
(a) subjective, where the court must be satisfied that the accused actually had the requisite mental element present in his or her mind at the relevant time (for purposely, knowingly, recklessly etc) (see concurrence);
(b) objective, where the requisite mens rea element is imputed to the accused, on the basis that a reasonable person would have had the mental element in the same circumstances (for negligence); or
(c) hybrid, where the test is both subjective and objective.
The court will have little difficulty in establishing mens rea if there is actual evidence – for instance, if the accused made an admissible admission. This would satisfy a subjective test. But a significant proportion of those accused of crimes make no such admissions. Hence, some degree of objectivity must be brought to bear as the basis upon which to impute the necessary component(s). It is always reasonable to assume that people of ordinary intelligence are aware of their physical surroundings and of the ordinary laws of cause and effect (see causation). Thus, when a person plans what to do and what not to do, he will understand the range of likely outcomes from given behaviour on a sliding scale from "inevitable" to "probable" to "possible" to "improbable". The more an outcome shades towards the "inevitable" end of the scale, the more likely it is that the accused both foresaw and desired it, and, therefore, the safer it is to impute intention. If there is clear subjective evidence that the accused did not have foresight, but a reasonable person would have, the hybrid test may find criminal negligence. For these purposes, therefore, where the relevant statutes are silent and it is for the common law to form the basis of potential liability, the reasonable person must be endowed with the same intellectual and physical qualities as the accused, and the test must be whether an accused with these specific attributes would have had the requisite foresight and desire.
(D) In the event that their cultural Marxist politically correct report does not clarify the matter: their particular subjective and objective tests for ‘REASONABLENESS’. Put differently, if we consider the dozens of political terrorism acts conducted around the world every year, none of whom are charged with being insane, how are those terrorists actions considered to have been ‘reasonable terrorist acts’ and hence worthy of a free and fair trial to disclose their political grievances; but Anders Breivik’s actions are not only not those of a ‘reasonable terrorist’, but additionally ‘insane’?
Applicants Perspective to Reasonableness Test:
Common Law Definition of Reasonable Test is in accordance to Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582; [1957] 2 All ER 118: Generally, the standard of care/foresight a person is expected to attain is an objective standard derived from what a reasonable person would do under the same circumstances. 'Where you get a situation which involves the use of some special skill or competence, then the test…is not the test of the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill.'
‘The man on the Clapham omnibus’, is in legal speak, 'the reasonable person'. This is a phrase that was first used by Sir Charles Bowen, QC (later Lord Bowen). (Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable, 16th Edition, 1995) The man on the Clapham omnibus/the man in the street means the average ordinary English person (Oxford Guide to British & American Culture, 1999) Bolam -v- Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582; [1957] 2 All ER 118: Professional Negligence: “Where some special skill is exercised, the test for negligence is not the test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising or professing to have that special skill.”
[I] WRIT OF HABEUS MENTEM:
[A] The writ of Habeus Mentem – the right of a wo/man to their own mind and culture -- is invoked specifically against Anders Breivik’s attorney: Geir Lippestad, and Psychiatrists Synne Serheim and Torgeir Husby; and indirectly against the Norwegian multi-culti liberal political, legal, academic and media establishment who appear to be deliberately and perhaps maliciously attempting to deny Anders Breivik a free and fair trial, by means of a fraudulent and politically motivated ‘political psychiatry’ ‘insanity’ report and public media statements, so as to deny Mr. Breivik his day in court.
This writ is requested in accordance with the:
Norwegian Constitution: Art 2: Free exercise of religion; Article 4: the duty of patriotic Norwegians to protect and uphold the official Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran religion (Imagine: Would there even be an Evangelical Lutheran religion; if the Catholic church had hired the equivalent of Stalinesque ‘Insanity’ Rubber Stamp Psychiatrists Synne Serheim and Torgeir Husby to pronounce Martin Luther’s 95 Theses criticism of the Catholic Church to have been an act of insanity? ); Article 100: Freedom of Expression and the responsibility of the authorities of the State to create conditions that facilitate open and enlightened public discourse; Article 110 a: Responsibility of responsibility of the authorities of the State to create conditions enabling indigenous Norwegians to preserve and develop their language, culture and way of life; Article 110 b: The responsibility of the government to manage Norways natural resources on the basis of comprehensive long-term considerations whereby this right will be safeguarded for future generations as well. Citizens are entitled to information on the state of the natural environment and on the effects any encroachment on nature – due to large scale immigration of foreigners to enable liberal multiculti political parties to import foreign liberal voters to disturb the security of indigenous Norwegian’s Storting voting practices - that is planned or carried out. The authorities of the State are required to issue specific provisions for the implementation of these principles, that shall affect indigenous Norwegians future generations access to Norwegian natural resources.
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Article 1: Obligation to respect human rights, Article 5: right to liberty and security; Article 6: right to a fair trial; Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion; Article 13: right to an effective remedy; Article 14: prohibition of discrimination.
NOTE ON HABEUS MENTEM:
The title of the writ -- Habeus Mentem - is borrowed from Aldous Huxley’s A Brave New World Revisited; where 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”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.
[II] A WRIT OF CERTIORARI / REVIEW:
[A] The writ of Certiorari / Review is invoked specifically against Anders Breivik’s attorney: Geir Lippestad, and Psychiatrists Synne Serheim and Torgeir Husby; and indirectly against the Norwegian multi-culti liberal political, legal, academic and media establishment who appear to be deliberately and perhaps maliciously attempting to deny Anders Breivik a free and fair trial, by means of a fraudulent and politically motivated ‘political psychiatry’ ‘insanity’ report, so as to deny Mr. Breivik his day in court.
This writ is requested in accordance with the:
Norwegian Constitution: Art 2: Free exercise of religion; Article 4: the duty of patriotic Norwegians to protect and uphold the official Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran religion (Imagine: Would there even be an Evangelical Lutheran religion; if the Catholic church had hired the equivalent of Stalinesque ‘Insanity’ Rubber Stamp Psychiatrists Synne Serheim and Torgeir Husby to pronounce Martin Luther’s 95 Theses criticism of the Catholic Church to have been an act of insanity? ); Article 100: Freedom of Expression and the responsibility of the authorities of the State to create conditions that facilitate open and enlightened public discourse; Article 110 a: Responsibility of responsibility of the authorities of the State to create conditions enabling indigenous Norwegians to preserve and develop their language, culture and way of life; Article 110 b: The responsibility of the government to manage Norways natural resources on the basis of comprehensive long-term considerations whereby this right will be safeguarded for future generations as well. Citizens are entitled to information on the state of the natural environment and on the effects any encroachment on nature – due to large scale immigration of foreigners to enable liberal multiculti political parties to import foreign liberal voters to disturb the security of indigenous Norwegian’s Storting voting practices - that is planned or carried out. The authorities of the State are required to issue specific provisions for the implementation of these principles, that shall affect indigenous Norwegians future generations access to Norwegian natural resources.
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Article 1: Obligation to respect human rights, Article 5: right to liberty and security; Article 6: right to a fair trial; Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion; Article 13: right to an effective remedy; Article 14: prohibition of discrimination.
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.
» » » » [Notice of Motion & Affidavit :: Proof of Service]
No comments:
Post a Comment