Response: ELENA: Adv. Carl Rieber-Mohn: Is Norway (A) a Children-of-Rainbow Legal Multiculti (right to invoke Sharia?) State; or (B) Monocultural Indigenous EU Supremacy Legal Hegemonic State?

Response: ELENA: Adv. Carl Rieber-Mohn: Is Norway (A) a Children-of-Rainbow Legal Multiculti (right to invoke Sharia?) State; or (B) Monocultural Indigenous EU Supremacy Legal Hegemonic State?

Current EU law require 'refugee/asylum seeker' to lie to get tourist visa | If the NO Min. of Culture decide that Norway is "(A) a ‘Children of the Rainbow’ State legally committed to Multiculturalism, providing all cultures their right to invoke cultural law, then Applicant could invoke Radical Honoursty cultural law | or NO Min of Culture could decide Norway is not nearly as committed to Legal Multiculturalism as 'racist' Apartheid were (i.e. that Liberal Norway is legally way more 'racist' towards other cultures, than Apartheid ever was); by deciding that Norway is (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.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 07 May 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 12:28 AM
TO: 'Carl K. Rieber-Mohn'
CC: DO-A: ELENA: ABWIIG: Frihagen (**@abwiig.no); DO-A: ELENA: ABWIIG: Risnes (**@abwiig.no); DO-A: ELENA: Dahl (**@online.no); DO-A: ELENA: Furuholmen: Signe Blekastad (**@adv-furuholmen.no); DO-A: ELENA: Furuholmen: Trond Olsen Naess (**@adv-furuholmen.no); DO-A: ELENA: Arild Humlen (**@hrmlegal.no); DO-A: ELENA: Furuholmen: Office (**@adv-furuholmen.no); DO-A: ELENA: Bente Tjugum (**@adv-hst.no); DO-A: ELENA: Midsem (**@advokatmidsem.no); DO-A: ELENA: Mette Lisbeth Jensen (**@advokatmlj.no); DO-A: ELENA: NOAS: Andreas Furuseth (**@noas.org); DO-A: ELENA: NOAS (**@noas.org); DO-A: ELENA: Redet: Thor Gardarsson (**@advokatredet.no); DO-A: NO Refugee Council: Elisabeth Rasmussen (**@nrc.no); DO-A: NO Refugee Council: Office (**@nrc.no)
Subject: RE: [ELENA: Adv A.Humlen & C.Rieber-Mohn] NO-Breivik: Supreme Crt Applic for Review & Decl. Order

Dear Mr. Rieber-Mohn,

CC: ELENA: NORWAY: LAWYERS PROVIDING ADVICE Parties

Thank you for your response: "This is no matter for lawyers in the ELENA network in Norway. We mat assist in refugee cases etc. Sorry"

Could you clarify your statement, by answering the following questions, please.

1. Did you read the full notice of motion and Affidavit, Sir?

2. Do you agree: the 2010 ECRE: ELENA brochure states on pages 80-81 "Asylum seekers can seek asylum at the border control at the airport or Storskog, the only Norwegian external Schengen land border station, or any international port, and should do so immediately upon arrival... [..] All asylum seekers will be given free legal assistance by the lawyer of his or her choice if they are not granted a residence permit at the time a negative decision is made, and he or she will have the possibility to appeal the decision. [..] Upon arrival asylum seekers are given legal information by NOAS, an NGO given this task by the Directorate of Immigration. [..] If receiving a negative decision every asylum seeker will receive free legal aid by an independent lawyer. [..] Free legal aid is given by the state according to standardised rates. If deemed necessary due to the complexity of the case further legal aid will be given upon application. The lawyer will make necessary applications. Under the legal aid system the lawyer has the duty to give assistance that is deemed necessary. 4. Legal aid is rarely given to try cases before the national courts. The Norwegian Bar Association is running a project to have more negative decisions tried by the courts. Cases are being presented to a committee which will recommend cases to be brought before the courts on a no cure-no pay basis by experienced lawyers."

3. Do you agree that current European-culture 'Refugee and Asylum law' requires an immigrant to lie/commit fraud in acquiring the relevant fraudulent tourist visa to physically arrive “at the border control at the airport or Storskog, the only Norwegian external Schengen land border station, or any international port, and should do so immediately upon arrival”?
 
4. Do you agree that if I arrived as a 'refugee/asylum seeker' on Norwegian soil (fraudulently) and then immediately applied for 'refugee/asylum' status, then I would be "given legal information by NOAS, an NGO given this task by the Directorate of Immigration. [..] If receiving a negative decision [I would] receive free legal aid by an independent lawyer. [..] Free legal aid is given by the state according to standardised rates. If deemed necessary due to the complexity of the case further legal aid [would be provided to me] upon application. The lawyer [would] make necessary applications. Under the legal aid system the lawyer [would have] the duty to give assistance that is deemed necessary."?

5. Do you agree that I stated in my application to the Supreme Court, that: "A.1.d. International Kaffir Legislation Immigration (Refugee and Asylum law) requires an immigrant to lie/commit fraud in acquiring the relevant fraudulent tourist visa to physically arrive “at the border control at the airport or Storskog, the only Norwegian external Schengen land border station, or any international port, and should do so immediately upon arrival.” The Applicant’s culture is founded on brutal honesty, honour and radical transparency and hence denies her the right to lie on any Visa application form, fraudulently stating that she shall be visiting as a tourist, when her honest intentions are to apply for her Jus Sanguinis Indigenous European citizenship status."? (Notice of Motion: Para. (A.1.d))

6. Do you agree that I requested the Supreme Court to provide the following Order: "[II] 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." (Notice of Motion: Para. (II...))

7. Would you agree that if the Norwegian Ministry of Culture decides that Norway is indeed" (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," then the Chief Justice would be confronted with a multiculti legal situation / a conflict of cultural laws, and hence be required to enquire into the cultural orientation of the relevant parties, by examining the parties lifestyles to determine the true cultural orientation of the parties. Once so done, the Chief Justice could conclude -- based upon my lifestyle, experience and commitment to my culture -- that brutal honesty is indeed the social contract foundation of my culture and character, and hence any laws which demand that I lie and commit fraud in order to gain access to rights automatically granted to individuals from other cultures who have no cultural qualms about lying or committing fraud to gain access to 'refugee / asylum / citizenship' rights, would be discriminatory towards the Radical Honoursty culture.

8. Would you agree it is possible the Chief Justice may then decide based upon such interpretation of Radical Honoursty cultural law, within the context of Norways commitment to allowing individuals to invoke cultural law, that I should be granted the right to apply for 'asylum / refugee / citizenship' status, from South Africa, without being required to violate my culture by committing fraud/lying, and may be granted the same 'legal aid' rights as an individual from another culture, who committed fraud to arrive on Norwegian soil?

9. Naturally, of course, it is also possible that the Norwegian Ministry of Culture could decide that Norway is not nearly as committed to Legal Multiculturalism as 'racist' Apartheid were (i.e. that Liberal Norway is legally way more 'racist' towards other cultures, than Apartheid ever was); and decide that Norway is (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."?

10. Of course if the Norwegian Ministry decide on the latter, I would probably not be able to invoke Radical Honoursty cultural law in a Monocultural Indigenous European Supremacy Legal Hegemonic State. However, I would like to give Norway the benefit of the doubt, that Norway is indeed 'less racist' than those alleged 'racist Apartheid Boers' who were most sincerely committed to legal multiculturalism; i.e. provided all SA citizens from all cultures with their right to invoke cultural law.

11. If, however your objections to seriously and sincerely considering the matter are because you are one of those kinds of lawyers who is obsessed with your 'bullshit-the-public-relations' image management; instead of -- like Adv. Geir Lippestad, honourably committed to the rule of law, FOR EVERYONE -- then it is better our paths do not cross. I am looking for an HONOURABLE Assistance of Counsel: someone who considers the RULE OF LAW FOR EVERYONE way more important than their own bullshit-the-public-relations image management.

12. As a matter of honour, I shall give the Norwegian Ministry of Culture the benefit of the doubt; that they are sincerely committed to "(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"; until they inform me and Chief Justice Tore / the Supreme Court otherwise.

13. If there was some other issue that you thought I was confused about, or misinterpreting, I'd appreciate it if you could clarify such.

Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com

PS: As a member of the Radical Honoursty culture, my practice of Radical Transparency includes correspondence with any lawyer/attorney. I do not believe in, nor do I practice 'private' or 'confidential' correspondence.

*******************

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl K. Rieber-Mohn
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 9:06 PM
To: Lara Johnstone
Subject: Re: [ELENA: Adv A.Humlen & C.Rieber-Mohn] NO-Breivik: Supreme Crt Applic for Review & Decl. Order

This is no matter for lawyers in the ELENA network in Norway. We mat assist in refugee cases etc.

Sorry.


Carl K. Rieber-Mohn
Lawyer

*******************

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 11:05 AM
To: DO-A: ELENA: Arild Humlen (**@hrmlegal.no); DO-A: ELENA: Carl Rieber-Mohn (**@online.no)
Subject: [ELENA: Adv A.Humlen & C.Rieber-Mohn] NO-Breivik: Supreme Crt Applic for Review & Decl. Order

TO: ELENA OSLO LEGAL ADVISOR
Advokat Carl K. Rieber-Mohn
Advokat Arild K. Humlen
Advokatene Rieber-Mohn m.fl.
PO Box 381 Sentrum, N 0102 Oslo
Tel: 47 24 14 03 00 | Fax: +47 24 14 03 01


With Reference to:

[A] Applicant to be admitted as a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee Applicant in this matter, and granted Assistance of Council/Support in this matter from the Norwegian Refugee Council and/or ELENA.

[... continued in Notice of Motion]


Please find:

IN THE NORWAY SUPREME COURT: NORWAY V. BREIVIK

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER & REVIEW

Oslo District Court Case #: 11-188627 MED-05

In the Application of:

LARA JOHNSTONE
Application to proceed as In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee

In the matter between:
KINGDOM OF NORWAY V. ANDERS BREIVIK

Please find attached the Notice of Motion and Founding Affidavit.

Application requests the Supreme Court to provide the following orders:

[A] Applicant to be admitted as a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee Applicant in this matter, and granted Assistance of Council/Support in this matter from the Norwegian Refugee Council and/or ELENA.

[B] 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.

[C] 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, in the following applications:

a. The Applicants 30 November 2011 Application for a Writ of [I] 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. (Annex A)


b. The Applicants 15 April 2012 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 [Breivik] and Applicant [Johnstone] 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. (Annex B)


TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that if you intend opposing this application you are required;-

(a) to notify applicant in writing on or before 28 MAY 2012; and

(b) within 15 DAYS after you have so given notice of your intention to oppose the application to file your answering affidavit, if any; and further that you are required to appoint in such notification an address, including an email address, at which you will accept notice and service of all documents in these proceedings.

If no such notice of intention to oppose is given, the applicant will request the Registrar to place the matter before the Chief Justice to be dealt with in terms of the relevant rules in accordance to the Supreme Court Test.


Respectfully Submitted

LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se
PO Box 5042 George East,
South Africa

» » » » [PDF]