Norway v. Breivik References in USCAAF (CCR v USA) & US Supreme Court (Alien v. RCFP) Applications
References to Media's abuse of publicity power in Norway v. Breivik: USCAAF: Founding Affidavit (pg.51-61) & Amicus Curiae (pg.26-27; 28); Supreme Court: Petition for Writ of Certiorari (pg.30)
Andrea Muhrrteyn | Ecofeminist vs. Breivik | 04 November 2012
[112] Subsequent to the Oslo District Court‘s 24 August Judgement, finding Mr. Breivik sane and guilty, the applicant filed a RH Ecofeminist Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security application for Review[106] of parts of the Patriarchal Anthropocentric Judgement, specifically for orders to [A.1] Set Aside the Judgements "Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling"; and [A.2] Set Aside Defendant‘s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry, and to ... [B] Set Aside the Judgements Failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges, as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5) principles, and general ECHR public accountability Transparency (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom) principles.
[113] The grounds for the application being that: [A.1.a] Necessity Judgement fails to provide any necessity criminal provisions that prohibit killing of Government Officials in case of Necessity; [A.1.b] Necessity Judgement Ignores that Criminal Necessity provisions do not prohibit the killing of Government Officials in case of objective and subjective Necessity; [A.1.c] Necessity Judgements Erroneous interpretation of Necessity related criminal law provisions and international necessity related human rights law; [A.1.d] Necessity and Guilt Judgements Failure to conduct required Objective and Subjective Tests for Defendant‘s Necessity Defence; [A.1.e] Necessity and Guilt Judgements Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Inadequate; [A.1.f] Necessity and Guilt Judgements Absence of Clarification Upon which party the Onus of Proof lies in a Case of Necessity; and how or why their evidence was insufficient renders the Judgements Conclusions inadequate; [A.1.g] Necessity and Guilt Judgements Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it a Discriminatory Precedent; [A.1.i] Necessity Judgements "Extreme Political Objectives" conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test; and is a Masculine (Reason and Logic) Insecurity Left vs. Right Wing Blame Game Parasite Leeching Polarization – not a Matriarchal Ecological and Psychological Integrity Root Cause Problem Solving – conclusion.
US Supreme Court: Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Further examples of abuse of publicity power in “cases where profound issues are at stake”, such as: The evidence for media’s role as Propaganda War Whores[117], censoring a debate about overpopulation in Population, Nixon and the Catholic Church[118], censoring a debate about over-consumption’s Peak Resource consequences contributing to 9/11 and Afghanistan[119], censoring the population issues contributing to AIDS: Africa’s Iatrogenic Depopulation Solution[120], and their censorship abuse of publicity power in court disputes of US vs. Lakin[121], The Citizen v. McBride[122], Afriforum vs. Malema[123] and Norway vs. Breivik[124].
» » » » [Cert Petition]
USCAAF: Ecocentric Amicus Curiae
Abuse of Publicity Power: Political-Psychiatry’s PC Whores:
Norway v. Breivik: Immediately after the issuance of the Husby/Sorheim Psychiatric Report finding Breivik insane[116], Amici filed an Application[117] for a writ of Habeus Mentem: Right to Legal Sanity[118], whereupon the Court ordered a new Psychiatric Enquiry. Amici is unaware of any news article implying Breivik‘s insanity, with equivalent publicity to expert/s who assert that "there is no such thing as mental illness[119], or a mental disorder[120]", its all just about social control121, PC "value judgements and cultural norms"[122]; based upon "horoscope chart science"[123] and Pharma-Psychiatry‘s Humpty Dumpty[124] definition of "insanity" and "disorder".
Norway v. Breivik: On 27 August Amici filed an application for review of parts of the Oslo District Courts 24 August 2012 Judgement in Norway v. Breivik[129], specifically for orders to Set Aside the Judgements "Necessity Ruling" and Conviction and to Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. Supreme Court Secretary General Gunnar Bergby refused to process the application, citing lack of legal standing; and has not yet responded to Amici‘s response. The Ecocentric application for review received no publicity.[130]
» » » » [USCAAF: Amicus Curiae]
USCAAF: Founding Affidavit
[108] NO: Kingdom of Norway vs. Anders Breivik:
[109] The Applicant has filed three RH Ecofeminist Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security applications to Norwegian courts; and notified over 1,000 Norwegian and International European journalists and editors of the applications. All three applications were ignored by the court authorities and presiding Judicial officials, and as a result were filed as complaints to the Parliamentary Ombudsman (Case 2012-1943) and the Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges (Judge Wenche Arntzen: 12-072; Chief Justice Tore Schei: 12-073).
On 15 April 2012, applicant filed an application to Oslo District Court, for an order to (1) proceed as Amicus Curiae (PDF[101]); and (2) Amend the Charges Against Mr. Breivik and Applicant to include Treason in terms of Article 85 of Norwegian Constitution, and if found guilty, in a free and fair trial, equivalent to the trial given to Nelson Mandela by the Apartheid government; to be executed by firing squad. [As explained to Mr. Breivik: "You are willing to die for your ideological beliefs, for saving your people and your culture; I am willing to risk death, to challenge your country to give you a free and fair trial, so that we can examine the truth about your evidence."[102]]
[110] On 10 May 2012, applicant filed an application for review (PDF[103]) of the Oslo District Courts refusal to provide a response to the applicants Amicus application; including a request for an Order that the Norwegian Ministry of Culture 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.
[111] Both the Amicus and Review applications were ignored by respectively the Oslo District Court (Judge Wenche Arntzen: Case 12-072[104]) and the Norway Supreme Court (Justice Tore Schei: Case 12-073[105]), and subsequent complaints were filed with the Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges, for violation of the applicants right of due process free and fair hearing (receipt of case number, hearing of eligibility of argument) for her applications.
[112] Subsequent to the Oslo District Court‘s 24 August Judgement, finding Mr. Breivik sane and guilty, the applicant filed a RH Ecofeminist Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security application for Review[106] of parts of the Patriarchal Anthropocentric Judgement, specifically for orders to [A.1] Set Aside the Judgements "Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling"; and [A.2] Set Aside Defendant‘s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry, and to ... [B] Set Aside the Judgements Failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges, as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5) principles, and general ECHR public accountability Transparency (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom) principles.
[113] The grounds for the application being that: [A.1.a] Necessity Judgement fails to provide any necessity criminal provisions that prohibit killing of Government Officials in case of Necessity; [A.1.b] Necessity Judgement Ignores that Criminal Necessity provisions do not prohibit the killing of Government Officials in case of objective and subjective Necessity; [A.1.c] Necessity Judgements Erroneous interpretation of Necessity related criminal law provisions and international necessity related human rights law; [A.1.d] Necessity and Guilt Judgements Failure to conduct required Objective and Subjective Tests for Defendant‘s Necessity Defence; [A.1.e] Necessity and Guilt Judgements Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Inadequate; [A.1.f] Necessity and Guilt Judgements Absence of Clarification Upon which party the Onus of Proof lies in a Case of Necessity; and how or why their evidence was insufficient renders the Judgements Conclusions inadequate; [A.1.g] Necessity and Guilt Judgements Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it a Discriminatory Precedent; [A.1.i] Necessity Judgements "Extreme Political Objectives" conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test; and is a Masculine (Reason and Logic) Insecurity Left vs. Right Wing Blame Game Parasite Leeching Polarization – not a Matriarchal Ecological and Psychological Integrity Root Cause Problem Solving – conclusion.
[114] The Ecocentric Sustainable Security Wild Law focused arguments being that the Courts Judgement of Breivik - like most Patriarchal Anthropocentric legalism - is about Left vs. Right Wing Blame Game polarization and parasitism, not about transparent root cause problem solving, which requires confronting the ecological and lack of psychological integrity (transparency) root causes of our disputes.
[115] When the court denies Breivik his right to an objective and subjective examination of his necessity defence, giving him a rubber stamp of "guilt"; this reinforces Breivik‘s argument about the so-called "Corrupt Multicultural Feminist State"; and rewards his Ego Anthropocentric Patriarchal parasitic desire for greater Left vs. Right wing blame game polarization.
[116] What Breivik fears more than an insanity ruling, is a free and fair trial where his Anti-Islam arguments are given an objective and subjective examination, not only from within the Left Wing vs. Right Wing blame game Anthropocentric worldview, but particularly from an Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security worldview that examines both (1) the ecological and demographic resource reality foundations of the Europe Titanic – Islam iceberg dispute; as well as (2) Masculine Insecurity and lack of psychological integrity avoidance of the Patriarchal Anthropocentric use of women as human-factory-farming-cannon-fodder-brood-sows for their Left vs. Right Wing profiteering from their Human Farming Tragedy of the Commons breeding war resource wars.
[117] Finally, denying Breivik his ‗Necessity‘ Defence Right to an Objective and Subjective Test of his Evidence sets horrific Precedent for denying other Activists, including future Decisive Ecological Warfare[107] Deep Green Resistance Eco-Warrior Necessity Activists their Necessity Test Rights.
[118] Further argument includes dozens of Common Law and Civil Disobedience Necessity Defence Cases which have resulted in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing; as well as Military Necessity‘s cases of (1) Nuremberg German High Command Trial and (2) Generaloberst Lothar Rendulic, Armed Forces Commander North, who commanded the Nazi Forces in Norway, and who was acquitted by the Tribunal on various charges, because the Tribunal‘s found "reasonable his belief that military necessity mandated his orders," for "the complete destruction of all shelter and means of existence in, and the total evacuation of the entire civilian population of the northern Norwegian province of Finmark...", "while still others were summarily shot for refusing to leave their homeland - in all, the thoroughness and brutality of this evacuation left some 61,000 men, women, and children homeless, starving and destitute"; whose case offers one of the few adjudicated views of what constitutes military necessity; and resulted in the Rendulic Rule, which emphasizes the importance of the Subjective Test, which is still applied in current Military doctrine.
[119] Initially the Supreme Court Registrar refused to respond to the application either with a case number, or clarify their reasons for failure to provide a case number, whereupon Applicant filed a complaint of slow case processing to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on 02 September 2012.
[120] On 10 September the Secretary General of the Supreme Court: Gunnar Bergby responded[108] refusing to process my Application for Review, citing Section 306[109] of the Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act[110], stating that "According to this regulation, 1st paragraph, the parties may appeal against a criminal judgment rendered by the district or appellate court. Persons or legal entities that are not parties to the case are not given the right of appeal. Mr. Anders Behring Breivik and the prosecution authority are the only parties in the specific case mentioned above, and the right of appeal is constricted to these."
[121] On 11 September 2012, Applicant responded[111] to Secretary General Bergby that her Application was not an Appeal, but one of Review; and that Applicant had legal standing in accordance to-among others-Criminal Procedure Act Section 377: "Interlocutory Appeal: An interlocutory appeal may be brought against a court order or decision by any person who is affected thereby …"; read in conjunction with: (1) ECHR: ARTICLE 13: Right to an effective remedy; and (2) ECHR: ARTICLE 14: Prohibition of discrimination. Furthermore, matters of Locus Standi / Legal Standing are not for Court Registrars or Secretary Generals to decide upon, but for courts to enquire into, if the matter is raised by any respondents, as an issue in dispute. Applicant requested Secretary General Bergby provide Applicant with the relevant statutory authority that allowed the Secretary General to make a ruling on locus standi, to deny an applicant access to a court, for an impartial enquiry into the matter.
Legal Standing: Legal Interest:
I am an Ecofeminist Political Necessity Activist, who has an interest in ensuring that all political activists from all ideologies, religions, races, cultures who plead to political or military necessity have their "necessity" evidence examined by the court, in terms of an objective and subjective test of such "necessity evidence"; the results of such an enquiry being used to make the final determination as to the accused‘s guilt or innocence, or mitigation or aggravation of sentencing.
Mr. Breivik‘s trial was the most high profile necessity trial on the world stage, for decades. If Mr. Breivik wants to deny himself and other White Nationalists, their right to the court conducting a full impartial enquiry into their necessity evidence, by conducting a subjective and objective test thereof; then that is Mr. Breivik and White Nationalists right... [and] should not be allowed to set a precedent where environmental, immigrant, religious or other necessity activists are also denied their right to an objective and subjective examination of their necessity evidence, just because one white nationalist chooses to become a martyr, with the enthusiastic support of the Oslo District Court and Norwegian Prosecutory authorities.
.. it is my assertion that the "Nodrett/Necessity" ruling in the Oslo District Court: Breivik judgement as it currently stands discriminates against other future necessity activists, by setting a precedent whereby they can be denied (or can due to ignorance deny themselves, by lacking the knowledge to assert their right thereto); an objective and subjective examination of their necessity evidence.
My application for review is accordingly to demand the right to an effective remedy, to amend this discriminatory necessity ruling in the Oslo District Court‘s Breivik judgement, from affecting other necessity activists.
[122] The following media have been informed[112] of the Application for Review of the Breivik Judgement: Chicago Sun-Times and Reason Magazine; The Globe and Mail; Christian Science Monitor; Pakistan: The News; National Post; Copenhagen Post; Bangladesh: The Daily Star; Foreign Policy; IceNews; The Guardian; New Statesman, Sky News, The Washington Post, ABC News, Jakarta Post, Salt Lake Tribune, Sydney Morning Herald.
[123] On the morning of 07 September the following Norwegian Foreign Press Association members[113] were informed of the Application for Review of the Breivik Judgement: Dawat Media, Agence France Presse, Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera, Associated Press, Bloomberg News, Al-Baghdidia, Die Welt, Middle East News Agency (MENA), Itar Tass, Politika, BBC, JB Ecologico, Xinhua, Aargauer Zeitung, Swiss Broadcasting Company, Financial Times Deutschland, Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen, Development Today, RUV Islands Radio, RTV 21, TV Azteca, GPD News Agency, Himalayan Times, News and Views from Norway, Gazeta Wyborcza, TSF Radio Noticias, Polska Times, Reuters, Radio Nacional de Espana, Sveriges Radio, Svenska Dagbladet, SVT Nyheter, Iraq National News Agency, etc.; who declined to report on the matter.
[124] On the evening of 07 September, Associated published a story with a headline, published[114] by among others Washington Post, ABC News, FoxNews, etc; as variations of "Breivik Case Formally Over/Ended". Associated Press and many of the publications who published the Associated Press story were contacted to provide them with evidence of the (A) Application for Review; and (B) correspondence from Secretary General Bergby and the Applicants response thereto; requesting that they publish a correction[115]. There has been no response from Associated Press, to the request.
» » » » [Founding Affidavit]
No comments:
Post a Comment