PFU to discuss processing of Breivik Guilty Complaint against Nina Berglund on 28 August

Breivik denies consent for EcoFeminist's 'Breivik is Innocent till Found Guilty' Media Complaint



Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 17 August 2012

On 31 July, a complaint was submitted 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'.

According to Norwegian Press Complaints Commission procedures a request for consent was also submitted to Mr. Breivik, via his attorneys: 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 (PDF)

The Complaint (PDF) 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.

Subsequent correspondence 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.

Direct correspondence and requests for clarification were sent to both Mr. Breivik and his advocate: Mr. Geir Lippestad.

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

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

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

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 15 August 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q's to Mr. Lippestad: Req for Clarity Re: guilt/innocence issue ignored in Breivik Trial by Prosecutors & Defence Counsel

Necessity Defence Cases that resulted in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing (incl. Mass Murder)

Mr. Geir Lippestad: Req for Clarity Re: guilt/innocence issue ignored in Breivik Trial by Prosecutors & Defence Counsel

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 13 August 2012

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.

Questions I have:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you are aware, I recently filed a Press complaint with PFU against News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'.

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’.

A Norwegian friend responded to my complaint to the PFU with:

"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."

My understanding of Norwegian and International/Foreign Law on Necessity (in attached PDF)

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

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

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’.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 31 July 2012

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.”

In United States v. Holmes, 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.

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.

In her closing statement, Prosecutor Engh acknowledge’s that:

(1) Norwegian prosecutors have a duty to conduct their investigation with objectivity;
(2) Norwegian law allows for an accused to plead to necessity and/or self defence,
(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;
(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;
(5) Breivik invoked the defence of necessity;
(6) Despite the fact that Breivik invoked the necessity defence, both Prosecutor Engh and Holden ‘refuse to touch the principle of necessity’.