Does Media's Massive Censorship of Oslo Crt Proceedings Justify Breivik's Acquittal?
Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 11 May 2012
If Breivik proves his Necessity arguments -- which can be summarized as 'Breivik brutally killed 77 to save 770 million from impending Islamic colonisation, massively censored from public discourse by media' -- he should be acquitted.
Common Law Necessity Defence Simply Explained:
Wiki: In U.S. criminal law, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense... 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.
If your wife is pregnant and ready to give birth and you are speeding to the hospital and stopped by a traffic cop; then you can plead Innocent to Speeding, according to Common Law Necessity. If you can prove to the Judge that your wife was pregnant and ready to give birth, then you were faced with two laws, one which you had to break. You broke the less harmful law: speeding.
Breivik's argument is that: (A) Foreign Immigration is causing Norway to be Colonized; (B) Islam is not what it pretends to be; (C) Massive Censorship of these issues from Public Discourse, justified a violent terror response.
If the RULE OF LAW, not the left wing notion of RULE OF EMOTION or the right wing notion of RULE OF MEN is applied in this case; then according to the Necessity Defence, if Breivik proves his arguments; one of them being massive Media Censorship, then he should be acquitted. Now if the media -- as part of his trial -- are involved in deliberately obstructing justice by means of censorship; that adds significant weight to Breivik's argument of Media Censorship of the issues he considers important to be raised in public discourse.
If Breivik proves his Necessity arguments -- which can be summarized as 'Breivik brutally killed 77 to save 770 million from impending Islamic colonisation, massively censored by media' -- he should be acquitted.
FACT: MEDIA CENSORSHIP WAS BREIVIK'S PRIMARY TERRORISM MOTIVATION TO ACCESS PUBLIC DISCOURSE:
Breivik's primary final motivation for Oslo/Utoya Terror Attacks was the Norwegian Media's Censorship:
Oslo Organized Crime Police Investigation Report "Explanation of 22 July 2011":
"[Breivik] 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..... 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..... 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...... 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."
FACT: DECEMBER 2011: MASSIVE MEDIA CENSORSHIP IN BREIVIK TRIAL
‘If It Bleads, It Leads’ Media’s Population-Terrorism Connection Report (PDF):
1,283 Norwegian Media Officials participate in massive Media Censorship Coverup of EcoFeminist Habeus Mentem Application to Oslo Court in Support of Breivik (1) Breivik's Right to Legal Sanity and a Free and Fair Trial; (2) The only logical outcome of a real ‘free and fair trial’ in Norway v. Breivik was: acquittal or the death penalty.
CENSORED BY 1,283 Norwegian Media Officials
FACT: APRIL 2012: MASSIVE MEDIA CENSORSHIP IN BREIVIK TRIAL
‘If It Bleads, It Leads’ Media’s Population-Terrorism Connection Report (PDF):
Over 1,283 Norwegian Media Officials participate in massive Media Censorship Coverup of EcoFeminist Amicus Curiae Application to Oslo Court in Support of Breivik (1) Breivik's Right to Legal Sanity and a Free and Fair Trial; (2) The only logical outcome of a real ‘free and fair trial’ in Norway v. Breivik was: acquittal or the death penalty.
CENSORED BY OVER 1,384 Norwegian Media Officials
FACT: MAY 2012: NEWS RELEASE TO INTNL NEWS WIRES: ECOFEMINISTS BREIVIK APPLIC TO NO SUPREME COURT
On 10 May 2012 the Application was finalized for the Norway Supreme Court.
On 11 May 2012 a 'test media censorship firewall' News Release was published to all International Wire Services, which includes: Reuters, Associated Press, Agence France Press (AFP), British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Voice of America. [Click to Enlarge Image]
All International Press Releases are also sent to National SA News Publication, but as a result of a SAPA Editor's error, this news release was sent twice (so both National and International News Agencies received it twice). Nationally South African News Agencies include: This Day, The Star, Beeld, The Pretoria News, Cape Times, Daily News, The Mercury, The Citizen, The Sowetan, The Sunday Sun, Daily Sun, City Press, The Daily Dispatch, EP Herald, The Sunday Times, The Independent, Business Day, Business Report, Sunday World, Mail & Guardian, Die Burger, The Natal Witness, Rapport, All SABC radio and television, ETV, Jacaranda, Highveld 94.7, Radio 702, Cape Talk, Kaya fm, Classic fm, East Coast, Kfm, Ofm, Radio Algoa, IOL, News24, SABCnews. [Click to Enlarge Image]
ARTICLES PUBLISHED BY NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL NEWS AGENCIES? ZERO!
Does Media's Massive Censorship of Oslo Crt Proceedings Justify one of Breivik's arguments, and contribute to his Acquittal?
11 May 2012 News Release: ECOFEMINISTS INDIGENOUS RIGHTS NORWAY V. BREIVIK SUPREME COURT APPLICATION
Issued by: STARH
Attention: News Editors
For immediate release:
ECOFEMINISTS INDIGENOUS RIGHTS NORWAY V. BREIVIK SUPREME COURT APPLICATION
GEORGE ZA / TRONDHEIM NO: On 10 May an EcoFeminist member of Radical Honesty SA culture, filed a Deep Green Ecology Indigenous Rights application in the Norway Supreme Court, which includes UN Special Rapporter on Indigenous Rights, James Anyana as one of the respondents.
The Norway Supreme Court are asked to issue two declaratory orders and review two applications submitted to the Oslo District Court in the Breivik matter. The initial Declratory Order requested asks that the African EcoFeminist Applicant be admitted to the Norway v. Breivik matter as a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee Applicant.
The EcoFeminist applicant states that she is a Jus Sanguinis (Right of Blood) descendant of Norwegian artillery officer and citizen: Johan Pieter FÜRSTENBERG, who was born about 1760 in Bergen, Norway and then emigrated to South Africa.
Johnstone states she is an Indigenous European, because she is Jus Sanguinis (Right of Blood) directly descended from Norwegian, French, Dutch, British and German Settler Progenitor/s who traveled to South Africa as ‘settler' farmers, soldiers, medical personnel, religious and political administrators, in response to, and as a result of, their Nations Geopolitical ‘Colonial Empire' Lebensraum Decision-making policies, to find only the Bushman, as indigenous natives.
Her Jus Sanguinis predecessors ‘Colonial Empire' actions were motivated by their decision thousands of years ago to give up their sustainable Law of Limited Competition hunter gatherer / agrarian policies, to adopt unsustainable Totalitarian Agriculture policies, which results in surplus food production / population, creating population Lebensraum pressures culminating in resource, culling and conquering wars for new territory.
If approved, the EcoFeminist Amicus would address alternative legal arguments from a Problem Solving Radical Transparency EcoFeminists perspective as opposed to the Prosecution & Defense's Parasite Leeching Masculine (Reason and Logic) Insecurity Patriarchal perspectives to allow the court to base its decision on a more comprehensive, natural law deep green ecology legal framework.
Radical Honoursty Sustainability argues that a healthy ecological environment based on carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights. Legally this means that an individual whose lifestyle is sustainable, in terms of procreation (2 children or less per family) and consumption (ecological footprint) should be entitled to other civil and human ‘rights', whereas individuals whose lifestyle are not sustainable should be denied other rights until they amend their lifestyle to being sustainable.
Johnstone is 45 years old, has never been on welfare, has used contraception since the age of 19 to avoid pregnancy. She has lived an ecological small footprint life; to avoid aggravating overpopulation, resource wars; materialist consumerism and resource depletion. Her Ecological Footprint, excluding ‘Child-Free' factor is 13.16 gha.
The second Declaratory Order requests the Norwegian Minister of Culture to clarify whether Norway is legally a ‘Children of the Rainbow' Multicultural State, granting the Applicant her rights to invoke Radical Honoursty cultural law.
The court has acknowledged receipt but not yet issued a case number.
Application PDF: issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120510_breivik-dgr-ecofem
Contact details: Lara Johnstone
Radical Honesty SA
» » » » [Link 2 Media]