Letter to Editor: Errors in Chicago Sun Times: Breivik Ruling a Victory for Rule of Law
Letter to Chicago Sun Times Managing Editor: Craig Newman; Features Editor: Linda Bergstrom; News Editor: Zach Finken and Reason Editor: Jacob Sullum: RE: Jacob Sullum’s Article: Breivik ruling a victory for the rule of law.
Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminist vs. Breivik | 29 August 2012
Letter (PDF) to Chicago Sun Times Managing Editor: Craig Newman; Features Editor: Linda Bergstrom; News Editor: Zach Finken and Reason Editor: Jacob Sullum: RE: Jacob Sullum’s Article: Breivik ruling a victory for the rule of law.
[1] Norway’s Press Complaints Commission authorizes Norwegian Media to deceive the public, if the target of the deception consents to it. [PFU: Lara Johnstone vs. News with Views in Norway]
[2] The ‘Rule of Law’ in Norway: Norway v. Breivik: 3 Judicial Ethics and 170 Attorney Ethics Complaints Pending.
[3] Inaccuracy of Mr. Breivik’s ‘conviction’: Breivik’s Conviction has been appealed by means of review.
Email to Chicago Sun Times & Reason Ed: Jacob Sullum:
From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:33 PM
To: 'EdCh: Jim Kirk'; 'Ed: Tom McNamee'
Cc: 'MngEd: Craig Newman'; 'EdFtrs: Linda Bergstrom'; 'NewsEd: Zach Finken'; 'Reason: Jacob Sullum'
Subject: Chic.Sun.Times: Jacob Sullum: Breivik ruling a victory for the rule of law
Jim Kirk: Editor in Chief
Chicago Sun-Times
CC: Jacob Sullum
Dear Mr. Kirk and Sullum,
RE: Jacob Sullum’s Article: Breivik ruling a victory for the rule of law.
[1] Norway’s Press Complaints Commission authorizes Norwegian Media to deceive the public, if the target of the deception consents to it. [PFU: Lara Johnstone vs. News with Views in Norway]
The PFU ruled that a Norwegian media news publication could state that Mr. Breivik had been 'found guilty' prior to the Judgement that made the finding of guilt, since Mr. Breivik consented to the deception.
[2] The ‘Rule of Law’ in Norway: Norway v. Breivik: 3 Judicial Ethics and 170 Attorney Ethics Complaints Pending.
Complaints regarding Judicial and Attorney ethics violations during Norway v. Breivik trial proceedings.
[3] Inaccuracy of Mr. Breivik’s ‘conviction’: Breivik’s Conviction has been appealed by means of review.
On 27 August 2012 an application was filed with the Norwegian Supreme Court for Review of the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement, to set aside (A) the Necessity ruling, and (B) the conviction; to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. The finding of guilt, in the absence of full Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Conclusions renders the Guilt Finding Inadequate.
Specifically the Application requests the following orders:
[A.1] Set Aside the Judgements ‘Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling’
[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.
[A.3] If Defendant refuses to cooperate with Further Evidence proceedings; an order to change his plea to ‘guilty’; and/or ‘Non-Precedent’ Setting Declaratory Order
[A.4] If Failure of Justice Irregularity Does not Influence Conviction and/or Sentence Verdict; a ‘Non-Precedent Setting’ Declaratory Order
[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
More details in attached PDF letter.
The Review application Notice of Motion and Founding Affidavit are at:
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/nom--affidavit.html
Respectfully,
Lara Johnstone
» » » » [EcoFeminist vs. Breivik]
No comments:
Post a Comment