US Court of Appeals for Armed Forces: Media Censorship & Left v Right Wing Polarization Agenda Amicus Filed

US Court of Appeals for Armed Forces: Media Censorship & Left v Right Wing Polarization Agenda Amicus Filed

US Court of Appeals for Armed Forces to consider an Amicus Application to issue of Media Censorship in Bradley Manning courtmartial; that provides evidence of Media censorship of Ecocentric arguments to court disputes in McBride v Citizen, Afriforum v Malema and Norway v Breivik which prove the Media's Left vs Right wing polarization agenda.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminists vs. Breivik | 14 September 2012

Application to Proceed as Amicus Curiae - including arguing issues of media censorship in trial of Anders Breivik - electronically filed (PDF) in United States Court of Appeals for Armed Services: Subject: CCR v. United States - Dkt. No. 12-8027/AR - electronic filing [Crim. App. Misc.: Dkt. No. 20120514 || USCA Misc. Dkt. No. 12-8027/AR]

Petitioners: CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, ET AL.: Glenn Greenwald, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!,The Nation and its national security correspondent Jeremy Scahill, Wikileaks and its publisher, Julian Assange; Kevin Gosztola, co-author of Truth and Consequences: The U.S. vs. Bradley Manning, and Chase Madar: author of The Passion of Bradley Manning

Respondents: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and COL. DENISE LIND, MILITARY JUDGE

Amici: REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: Allbritton Communications Company, American Society of News Editors, The Associated Press, Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, Atlantic Media, Inc., Cable News Network, Inc., Digital Media Law Project, Dow Jones & Company, Inc., The E.W. Scripps Company, First Amendment Coalition, Gannett Co., Inc., Hearst Corporation, Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, The McClatchy Company, Military Reporters & Editors, The National Press Club, National Press Photographers Association, New England First Amendment Coalition, New York Daily News, The New York Times, Newspaper Association of America, The Newspaper Guild – CWA, North Jersey Media Group Inc., Online News Association, POLITICO LLC, Radio Television Digital News Association, Reuters, Society of Professional Journalists, Tribune Company, The Washington Post and WNET.

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED AS AMICUS CURIAE

[1] For an Order to approve the Applicant, to Appear Pro Se (propria persona / pro per), pursuant to Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 92 and Rules 13(a) and 33 (leniency on procedure and Radical Honesty English) of this Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, to appear pro hac vice for the limited purpose of being admitted as an Amicus Curiae.

[2] For an Order to approve the Applicant as an Ecocentric Amici Curiae in the above Anthropocentric proceedings in the form of written submissions in accordance with Rule 26(a)(3), of the Rules of Court.

14 Sept: US Court of Appeals for Armed Services Clerk Response:
Response from US Court of Appeals for Armed Services: Clerk of the Court: Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 13:17 PM: Subject: RE: CCR v. United States - Dkt. No. 12-8027/AR - electronic filing: "Your pleadings have been received and referred to the Court."

Excerpts: US Court of Appeals for Armed Forces: Media Censorship & Left v Right Wing Polarization Agenda Amicus Filed

[40] The Appellants fail to clarify what happens when the journalists reporting on any particular public interest criminal trial deliberately censor one or more parties arguments submitted to the court. Essentially, any court can practice 100% transparency, but if the media choose to censor one or more parties arguments, before that court, the media choose not only to limit the contemporaneous review of the court proceedings, in the forum of public opinion; but effectively, in terms of public opinion knowledge of the fairness of the proceedings, conduct a trial by media, thereby undermining the credibility of the court’s decisions, as a result of public ignorance of all the arguments and evidence submitted to the court.

[41] In the Applicants experience, this occurs frequently with Beyond Left and Right Wing Ecocentric applications to Anthropocentric court proceedings. Applicants working hypothesis conclusion is that the true motive of the majority of these media publications is not “to cover the proceedings consistent with their journalistic standards and obligations,” or ‘to provide meaningful reporting in the public interest’ ; and definitely not the standard of scientific journalism that Wikileaks advocates; but yellow journalism consciously or unconsciously focussed on enabling the endless escalation of the divide and conquer polarisation of their respective Anthropocentric ‘Left vs. Right wing’ reader bases.

[42] Left and Right Wing Anthropocentric Media censorship has occurred in the RH Ecofeminist Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security focused applications, Applicant has submitted in the disputes between [A] ANC ‘Left Wing’ Terrorist Robert McBride vs. ‘Right Wing’ Citizen Newspaper (ZA: CCT 23-10); [B] ‘Right Wing’ Afriforum vs. ANC ‘Left Wing’ Political-‘Kill the Settlers’-Terrorist Julius Malema (ZA: SCA 815/11); and [C] ‘Left Wing’ Kingdom of Norway vs. Norwegian ‘Right Wing’ Terrorist Anders Breivik (NO: ODC #11-188627MED-OTIR/05) cases.

[43] In all aforementioned cases the Anthropocentric Left/Right Wing – South African, Norwegian and International - media provided endless reporting of the respective Anthropocentric Left vs. Right Wing legal arguments submitted to the court during these court proceeding disputes, enabling endless escalation of the divide and conquer polarisation of their respective ‘Left vs. Right wing’ reader bases, while totally and utterly censoring even the reality that the court had received alternative ‘Beyond Left and Right Wing’ Wild Law Sustainable Security problem solving focussed arguments; irrespective of whether the courts: [A] approved the applicants Ecocentric application, recognizing the applicant as an official Amicus respondent in proceedings (Concourt: McBride), [B] officially recognized applicants documentation into the court record and final judgement (Equality/High Court: Malema); [C] totally irregularly ignored the application (Norway: Oslo District Court), resulting in complaints currently pending before the Parliamentary Ombudsman (Cases: 2012-1943 and 2012-1987) and Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges (NO: Cases: 12-071, 12-072, 12-073).

[44] Applicant’s working hypothesis conclusion being that Anthropocentric media publications reporting on resource-war / scarcity-security court disputes have no regard for scientific journalism (providing readers full access to all original source documents) to report all relevant arguments submitted into the court record by all parties; but propagandize reporting of the respective Anthropocentric Left vs. Right Wing legal arguments their editorial bias endorses, to enable the exponential growth of the divide and conquer polarisation of their respective ‘Left vs. Right wing’ reader base, while totally and utterly censoring their readers from the reality that the court has received alternative ‘Beyond Left and Right Wing’ Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security problem solving focussed arguments.

[45] The applicant consequently recommends the court – as a social science experiment to determine the validity of the Applicants arguments about the alleged motives of First Amici’s – keenly observe the Anthropocentric response, or lack thereof, by the Appellants so-called ‘national and local news organizations… news… whose journalists … regularly gather and disseminate news and information to the public through their newspapers, magazines, television, radio stations and via the Internet’ to being provided with this Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security application, to this court, in this matter.

[..]

[91] Case Study of Media Censorship of Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security Problem Solving Arguments in resource-war / scarcity-security court disputes:

[..]

[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 ); 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.” ]

[110] On 10 May 2012, applicant filed an application for review (PDF ) 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 ) and the Norway Supreme Court (Justice Tore Schei: Case 12-073 ), 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 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 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 refusing to process my Application for Review, citing Section 306 of the Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act , 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 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 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 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 [Press] published a story with a headline, published 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 . There has been no response from Associated Press, to the request.


» » » » [USCAAF: CCR v USA Amicus :: CCR v USA :: Army Court Martial Defence]