EcoFeminists Deep Green Ecology Indigenous Rights Application Filed in Norway v. Breivik Supreme Court

EcoFeminists Deep Green Ecology Indigenous Rights Application Filed in Norway v. Breivik Supreme Court

EcoFeminist is a Jus Sanguinis Indigenous European | EcoFeminists Jus Sanguinis Settler Progenitor/s 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’ Decision-making policies, to find only the Bushman, as indigenous natives | ‘Colonial Empire’ actions were motivated by their decision thousands of years ago to give up their sustainable hunter gatherer / agrarian policies founded upon the Law of Limited Competition, and instead to adopt unsustainable Totalitarian Agriculture policies.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | 10 May 2012 | Norway v. Breivik

A Deep Green Ecology Indigenous Rights application has been filed in the Norway Supreme Court by an African EcoFeminist member of the Radical Honesty culture. The application includes the UN Special Rapporter on Indigenous Rights, James Anyana (http://unsr.jamesanaya.org/) as one of the respondents.

The Norway Supreme Court are asked to approve the African EcoFeminist Applicant to be admitted to the Norway v. Breivik matter as a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee Applicant.

If approved, the EcoFeminist Amicus Curiae written submissions would (a) address alternative legal arguments to those of both the Prosecution and Defense, i.e. from a Problem Solving Radical Transparency EcoFeminists perspective as opposed to the Prosecution & Defense’s Parasite Leeching Masculine (Reason and Logic) Insecurity Patriarchal perspectives; (b) ‘argue points deemed too far reaching for emphasis by parties intent on winning their particular Parasite Leeching Masculine Insecurity case’ ; (c) ‘apprise the court of Problem Solving Radical Transparency EcoFeminists legal, social, economic, ecological and cultural enquiry implications for its consideration’ to allow the court to base its decision on a larger, more comprehensive, and more accurate reality based natural law deep green ecology legal framework.

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.

The EcoFeminist applicant states that 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’ Decision-making policies, to find only the Bushman, as indigenous natives.

The EcoFeminist Application states that her predecessors ‘Colonial Empire’ actions were motivated by their decision thousands of years ago to give up their sustainable hunter gatherer / agrarian policies founded upon the Law of Limited Competition, and instead to adopt unsustainable Totalitarian Agriculture policies.

Daniel Quinn on Totalitarian Agriculture (04:19)

The EcoFeminist application uses the Deep Ecology Hub’s definition of the ‘Law of Limited Competition’, as follows:

The Law of Limited Competition Defined

Daniel Quinn defines the Law of Limited Competition as such: you may compete to the full extent of your capabilities but you may not hunt down your competitors or destory their food or deny them access to food.

Essentially what this means is that you cannot claim ownership of all the food: You can compete for the food that you need, but you cannot say "all the food is mine and no one else who wants any can have some." You can fight for food but you cannot act in a genocidal fashion, setting out to kill those who compete with you merely because they compete with you. A lion and a hyena may compete with each other to determine who gets to eat the dead antelope. However the lions may not rally together and set out to eliminate hyenas lest they challenge them for any of their kills. To do so would be to operate outside the boundaries of the law.

How The Law is Self Eliminating: If the lions did rally together and kill of all the hyenas then there would be more food for them. Their population would increase and their territory would expand. But there would still be other competitors for their food. So the lions set up a special task force to go out and eliminate other species that compete for food and living space. Maybe keep some in a zoo so they can be studied and looked at for fun but just get them out of our way so there is more room for us. If a species destroys their competitors then there is more food available to them. With more food they can support a higher population. And with a higher population they need more living space so they expand their territory. But as they expand their territory they meet more competitors who are eating food that could be theirs. So they destroy them, taking all the food in the new territory. With all this new food population expands again and so does territory. And then it happens all over again. This way of life works for a short period of time. It doesn't eliminate the species instantly.

Elimination only takes place when there is nowhere left to expand into, no competitors left to destroy. When this happens the way of life implodes. So many competitors have been destroyed that the biodiversity of the ecosystem has been fatally weakened. All that the landscape now supports is the lawbreaker and the lawbreaker's food. With biodiversity gone and the food chain destroyed the food supply of the lawbreakers will fall apart and when the food supply falls apart the lawbreaker is eliminated.

The EcoFeminist Application states that as a result of her Jus Sanguinis predecessors abandonment of the Law of Limited Competition, and adoption of Totalitarian Agriculture, their population continued to expand creating population pressures which then resulted in Lebensraum policies, which included European resource and culling wars and Colonial Empire desires and actions.

The EcoFeminist application states that both whites and blacks in South Africa are settlers, as a result of their adoption of totalitarian agriculture and its population growth and subsequent Lebensraum consequences; and that only the Bushman are indeed indigenous to Southern Africa.

The EcoFeminist application states that according to Jus Sanguinis law and principles enunciated by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples , the Applicant is consequently Jus Sanguinis indigenous to Europe, but denied citizenship by all her Jus Sanguinis EU Progenitor nations; and a settler citizen of South Africa, where she is ‘Kill the Boer’ not wanted.

Additional Deep Ecology issues raised in the EcoFeminist application are part of the social contract of her Radical Honoursty culture.

Radical Honoursty Social Contract:

Sustainability Defined: “A sustainable society utilizes renewable natural resources exclusively, at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are replenished by Nature; by extension, a sustainable society degrades natural habits at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are regenerated by Nature—forever. All other resource utilization behavior, and all human societies that engage in this behavior, are unsustainable—period. Society does not really have a choice regarding whether or not we'd like to be sustainable; we'll either transition voluntarily to a sustainable lifestyle paradigm, or Nature will do it for us--horrifically.” – Chris Clugston, On American Sustainability—Anatomy of a Societal Collapse: The Real “Inconvenient Truth”

Radical Honoursty Sustainability Bill of Rights:
A healthy ecological environment, with due regard for carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights; similarly a psychological radical transparency integrity environment of philosophical courageous truth searching honesty and sincere forgiveness is a sine qua non for healthy, transparent relationships that result in the co-creation of a code of conduct that enables non-violent honest sincere resolutions to disagreements.

Put differently, legislators or tribal leaders whose person to person, and tribe to nature tribal code of conduct relationships incorporate these two fundamental sine qua non precepts, can be said to have eliminated the difference between what the laws of human nature, and natural laws say and mean, and applied such knowledge in a clear code of conduct for their tribe to live in accordance to. They are social engineers who search for the truth about human nature and natural laws, and clarify and simply them for application.

Hence an individual whose lifestyle is sustainable, in terms of procreation (2 children or less) and consumption (ecological footprint) is entitled to other civil and human ‘rights’ and an individual whose lifestyle is not sustainable is denied other rights until they amend their lifestyle to being sustainable.

The EcoFeminist applicant is 45 years old, has never been on welfare, has used an IUD as contraception since the age of 19, and hence has never been pregnant, nor had an abortion. She has lived an ecological small footprint life; to avoid aggravating overpopulation, resource wars; materialist consumerism and resource depletion. Her Ecological Footprint (www.myfootprint.org/en/), excluding ‘Child-Free’ factor is 13.16 gha.

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

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 1:49 PM
To: Crt: SupremeCrt: Chief Justice Tore Schei (**@domstoladministrasjonen.no); Crt: SupremeCrt: Kjersti Ruud (**@hoyesterett.no) ; Crt: SupremeCrt: Info: Svein Tore Andersen (**@hoyesterett.no) [SS]
Subject: NO Supreme Crt: Justice Schei, c/o K.Ruud & ST.Andersen: NO-Breivik: Supreme Crt Applic for Review & Decl. Order

Chief Justice Tore Schei
Post: Postboks 5678 Sluppen 7485 Trondheim
Telefon: 73 56 70 00 | Telefaks: 73 56 70 01

I am still awaiting the Court Registrar to provide me with a Case Number.

Attached are the updated 10 May 2012 Filing Sheet, Notice of Motion, Founding Affidavit and Proof of Service PDF's, with updated respondents.

ORIGINAL PARTY RESPONDENTS:

[01] KINGDOM OF NORWAY Prosecution
[02] VICTIMS FAMILIES
[03] ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK Defendant

The other Respondents are:

Part A:

[04] NO REFUGEE COUNCIL: ELISABETH RASMUSSEN
[05] UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR: INDIGENOUS RIGHTS: JAMES ANAYA
[06] ELENA: LEG.ADV: FRIHAGEN, RISNES, BLEKASTAD, DAHL
[07] ELENA: NOAS: ANDREAS FURUSETH

Part B:

[08] MINISTER OF CULTURE: ANNIKEN HUITFELDT
[09] PROGRESS PARTY: SIV JENSEN
[10] CHURCH OF NORWAY: BERIT HAGEN AGOY
[11] MUSLIM SOC. OF TRONDHEIM: JJ OKSVOLD
[12] NUPI: HELGE LURAS

Part C:

[13] JUDGE NINA OPSAHL
[14] JUDGE WENCHE ELIZABETH ARNTZEN

AS DETAILED IN THE 07 MAY 2012 NOTICE OF MOTION & AFFIDAVIT:

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 Norwegian African White Refugee Amicus Curiae

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
Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239
Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za

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

SENT TO:

[01] KINGDOM OF NORWAY Prosecution [SS]
[02] VICTIMS FAMILIES [SS]
[03] ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK Defendant [SS]

Part A:

[04] NO REFUGEE COUNCIL: ELISABETH RASMUSSEN [SS]
[05] UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR: INDIGENOUS RIGHTS: JAMES ANAYA [SS]
[06] ELENA: LEG.ADV: FRIHAGEN, RISNES, BLEKASTAD, DAHL [SS]
[07] ELENA: NOAS: ANDREAS FURUSETH [SS]

Part B:

[08] MINISTER OF CULTURE: ANNIKEN HUITFELDT [SS]
[09] PROGRESS PARTY: SIV JENSEN [SS]
[10] CHURCH OF NORWAY: BERIT HAGEN AGOY [SS]
[11] MUSLIM SOC. OF TRONDHEIM: JJ OKSVOLD [SS]
[12] NUPI: HELGE LURAS [SS]

Part C:

[13] JUDGE NINA OPSAHL [SS]
[14] JUDGE WENCHE ELIZABETH ARNTZEN [SS]

» » » » [News Release + Application PDF :: Application PDF]