Response: ELENA: Adv. Carl Rieber-Mohn: Is Norway (A) a Children-of-Rainbow Legal Multiculti (right to invoke Sharia?) State; or (B) Monocultural Indigenous EU Supremacy Legal Hegemonic State?

Response: ELENA: Adv. Carl Rieber-Mohn: Is Norway (A) a Children-of-Rainbow Legal Multiculti (right to invoke Sharia?) State; or (B) Monocultural Indigenous EU Supremacy Legal Hegemonic State?

Current EU law require 'refugee/asylum seeker' to lie to get tourist visa | If the NO Min. of Culture decide that Norway is "(A) a ‘Children of the Rainbow’ State legally committed to Multiculturalism, providing all cultures their right to invoke cultural law, then Applicant could invoke Radical Honoursty cultural law | or NO Min of Culture could decide Norway is not nearly as committed to Legal Multiculturalism as 'racist' Apartheid were (i.e. that Liberal Norway is legally way more 'racist' towards other cultures, than Apartheid ever was); by deciding that Norway is (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.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 07 May 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 12:28 AM
TO: 'Carl K. Rieber-Mohn'
CC: DO-A: ELENA: ABWIIG: Frihagen (**@abwiig.no); DO-A: ELENA: ABWIIG: Risnes (**@abwiig.no); DO-A: ELENA: Dahl (**@online.no); DO-A: ELENA: Furuholmen: Signe Blekastad (**@adv-furuholmen.no); DO-A: ELENA: Furuholmen: Trond Olsen Naess (**@adv-furuholmen.no); DO-A: ELENA: Arild Humlen (**@hrmlegal.no); DO-A: ELENA: Furuholmen: Office (**@adv-furuholmen.no); DO-A: ELENA: Bente Tjugum (**@adv-hst.no); DO-A: ELENA: Midsem (**@advokatmidsem.no); DO-A: ELENA: Mette Lisbeth Jensen (**@advokatmlj.no); DO-A: ELENA: NOAS: Andreas Furuseth (**@noas.org); DO-A: ELENA: NOAS (**@noas.org); DO-A: ELENA: Redet: Thor Gardarsson (**@advokatredet.no); DO-A: NO Refugee Council: Elisabeth Rasmussen (**@nrc.no); DO-A: NO Refugee Council: Office (**@nrc.no)
Subject: RE: [ELENA: Adv A.Humlen & C.Rieber-Mohn] NO-Breivik: Supreme Crt Applic for Review & Decl. Order

Dear Mr. Rieber-Mohn,

CC: ELENA: NORWAY: LAWYERS PROVIDING ADVICE Parties

Thank you for your response: "This is no matter for lawyers in the ELENA network in Norway. We mat assist in refugee cases etc. Sorry"

Could you clarify your statement, by answering the following questions, please.

1. Did you read the full notice of motion and Affidavit, Sir?

2. Do you agree: the 2010 ECRE: ELENA brochure states on pages 80-81 "Asylum seekers can seek asylum at the border control at the airport or Storskog, the only Norwegian external Schengen land border station, or any international port, and should do so immediately upon arrival... [..] All asylum seekers will be given free legal assistance by the lawyer of his or her choice if they are not granted a residence permit at the time a negative decision is made, and he or she will have the possibility to appeal the decision. [..] Upon arrival asylum seekers are given legal information by NOAS, an NGO given this task by the Directorate of Immigration. [..] If receiving a negative decision every asylum seeker will receive free legal aid by an independent lawyer. [..] Free legal aid is given by the state according to standardised rates. If deemed necessary due to the complexity of the case further legal aid will be given upon application. The lawyer will make necessary applications. Under the legal aid system the lawyer has the duty to give assistance that is deemed necessary. 4. Legal aid is rarely given to try cases before the national courts. The Norwegian Bar Association is running a project to have more negative decisions tried by the courts. Cases are being presented to a committee which will recommend cases to be brought before the courts on a no cure-no pay basis by experienced lawyers."

3. Do you agree that current European-culture 'Refugee and Asylum law' requires an immigrant to lie/commit fraud in acquiring the relevant fraudulent tourist visa to physically arrive “at the border control at the airport or Storskog, the only Norwegian external Schengen land border station, or any international port, and should do so immediately upon arrival”?

Min Justice: Is Norway (A) a Children-of-Rainbow Legal Multiculti (right to invoke Sharia?) State; or (B) Monocultural Indigenous EU Supremacy Legal Hegemonic State?

Min Justice: Is Norway (A) a Children-of-Rainbow Legal Multiculti (right to invoke Sharia?) State; or (B) Monocultural Indigenous EU Supremacy Legal Hegemonic State?

Application Requests Supreme Court to Order 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.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 07 May 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 12:31 PM
To: Crt: SupremeCrt: Chief Justice Tore Schei (**@hoyesterett.no); Crt: SupremeCrt: Kjersti Ruud (**@hoyesterett.no)
Subject: [NO SUPREME CRT: Justice Tore Schei] NO-Breivik: Supreme Crt Applic for Review & Decl. Order

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


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 Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee

In the matter between:

KINGDOM OF NORWAY V. ANDERS BREIVIK

Please find attached the following [PDF] for Application to the Norway Supreme Court in this matter:

* NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER & REVIEW: Application in terms of Article’s 2, 4, 85, 100, 110a, 110b, of Norwegian Constitution; and Article’s 1, 5, 6, 9, 13 and 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“ECHR”) and Rule 44 § 2 of the Rules of the Court

* Founding Affidavit of Lara Johnstone, Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee

* Annex A: The Applicants 30 November 2011 Application to the Oslo District Court: 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 B: The Applicants 15 April 2012 Application to the Oslo District Court: 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.

* PROOF OF SERVICE Affidavit of Lara Johnstone

Usman Rana: "Nobody questioned Osama bin Laden's sanity" :: Norway's Muslims Question Racist Focus on Breivik's Sanity

Norway Muslims question focus on Breivik's sanity

Julia Gronnevet | Associated Press | Sat, Apr 28, 2012

World Islamic Mission Mosque, Oslo, Norway [Wikipedia]

OSLO, Norway (AP) — Muslim leaders in Norway say they are concerned that the anti-Islamic ideology of Anders Behring Breivik, the far-right fanatic now on trial for killing 77 people, is being overshadowed by questions about his mental state.

The self-described anti-Muslim militant shocked Norway on July 22 with a bombing and shooting rampage targeting the government headquarters and the Labor Party's annual youth camp. Since he has admitted to the attacks, the key issue for the trial is to determine whether Breivik is sane enough to be held criminally responsible.

"I'm not a psychiatrist, but what is important is what he has done. That should be the focus, not how crazy he is," said Mehtab Afsar, head of the Islamic Council in Norway, an umbrella organization of Muslim groups in the country.

"He wants to get rid of Muslims and Islam from Europe. That is his main message. So I don't see the point of using so much energy on is he normal, is he insane?" Afsar told The Associated Press.

English & Norwegian Defense League Shut Down Feminists Facebook Page in Support of Rule of Law Free & Fair Trial for Breivik

English & Norwegian Defense League Shut Down Feminists Facebook Page in Support of Rule of Law Free & Fair Trial for Breivik

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 13 February 2012

English and Norwegian Defense League members shut down Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored facebook page, dedicated to supporting a free and fair trial for Breivik, in accordance with the rule of law.

The mission of the Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored page was:

To support the Norwegian government to provide Breivik with a free and fair trial, equivalent to the treason trial provided to Nelson Mandela by the Apartheid South African government.

Anders Behring Breivik; born 13 February 1979, is a Norwegian terrorist, and the confessed perpetrator of the 2011 attacks in Norway. On 22 July 2011, Breivik bombed the government buildings in Oslo, which resulted in eight deaths. He then carried out a mass shooting at a camp of the Workers' Youth League (AUF) of the Labour Party on the island of Utøya where he killed 69 people, mostly teenagers.

Breivik's militant ideology is described in a compendium of texts, titled 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence and distributed electronically by Breivik on the day of the attacks.

Janne Kristiansen, Chief of the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST), has stated that Breivik "deliberately desisted from violent exhortations on the net [and] has more or less been a moderate, and has neither been part of any extremist network."

Breivik's statements that he considered his terrorist acts to be 'atrocious but necessary' to prevent a greater harm, are in accordance to the legal principles of the defence of political necessity or military necessity. The political necessity defence is frequently used by protestors, such as for example: Anti-Apartheid protestors used it when they occupied South African embassies. Katya Komisaruk pleaded to political necessity when she broke into Van den Burg Air Force Base to destroy the computers used to detonate Ballistic Missiles.

POLITICAL NECESSITY: 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. Most common law and civil law jurisdictions recognize this defense, but only under limited circumstances. 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.

MILITARY NECESSITY: Military necessity, along with distinction, and proportionality, are three important principles of international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict.

Military necessity is governed by several constraints: an attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court defined military necessity as: “The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) [of the Rome Statute] requires, inter alia, an assessment of: (a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury; (b) the anticipated military advantage; (c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).” [Luis Moreno-Ocampo OTP letter to senders re Iraq, 9 February 2006; International Criminal Court (ICC)]

As a radical honoursty (radical honoursty judges individuals based upon the content of their character, not their race, religion, ideology or culture), hence in Breivik's eyes a 'multiculti feminist' (Breivik's enemy), the founder of this page does not unequivocally endorse Breivik's ideology; but does unequivocally endorse the rule of law and free and fair trials, for EVERYONE.

Stalinesque Political Psychiatry in Norway: Knut Hamsun, Arnold Juklerød, Synnøve Fjellbakk Taftø

Psychiatry in Norway

FAMPO: People campaign against abuse of power, police abuse and culture

16 December 2011 | Norway v. Breivik

Norway is the European country with the highest amount of people being coercively hospitalised, relative to the population numbers.

An analysis made by SINTEF (research organisation) in the year 1996, it showed up that at about 45 per cent of all hospitalisations in Norwegian psychiatric clinics, are coercive. In other European countries the same numbers are between 5 to 15 percent.

The Norwegian numbers were, however, only an estimate. This is due to the fact that many hospitals do not even report coercive hospitalisations at all. Therefore, no good statistics are available.

In several other countries there are courts deciding whether or not a person shall be coercively hospitalised. This is not the situation in Norway. In Norway one may only complain to a so called “Control Commission” - after being hospitalised! In that situation it is often difficult for the patients to further their cases, because they are being drugged.

We have many examples of an utmost grave form of abuse of psychiatry – hospitalising
people who have disclosed corruption and abuse of power. The most well known example is the infamous so called Juklerød-affair.

Arnold Juklerød was hospitalised at Gaustad Psychiatric Hospital in 1971, with the diagnosis “paranoid schizophrenia.” According to the psychiatrists of Gaustad, Juklerød was diagnosed having “unchangeable paranoid false ideas”. This because he was able to prove, that the local authorities had broken the law, when shutting down a school.

As Trond Skaftnesmo later on documented, and also admitted by the Department itself in 1995, Juklerød’s “false ideas” were proven to be true! In spite of this, his so called “diagnosis” was never deleted.

Another one who was labelled mentally ill and coercively hospitalised was Synnøve Fjellbakk Taftø, a diplomat and a jurist. Taftø has written a book called Skjoldmøysagaen, where she writes about her experience from the Norwegian Diplomacy Service.

In the year 2000, the police in Sunnmøre wanted Kåre Torvholm and Oddmar Remøy mentally examined. In the case of Remøy, the argument for hospitalising him, tells a lot. This is what Bjørn Martin Aasen, municipal doctor in Herøy, and former secretary in one of the departments of Gro Harlem Brundtland’s government, was writing to justify coercive hospitalisation:

“He belongs to a civil network with both local, national, and international connections, which purpose is to disclose criminal things, happening in the public sector, and to get things on to a more productive track. In my opinion the requirements in lph 3 are fulfilled” (Lph 3’ is a shortage for the Law on Mental Care).

Norway's Altered State of Reality to Dissent: Insanity Report Critics, and Focus on Alleged Online Extremism

Psychiatry board claims impartiality
11-12-07
***

Attention turns to online extremists
11-12-07
***

Anti-Immigration Politician on leave after death threats
11-12-06
***

Experts challenge insanity diagnosis
11-12-05
***

Breivik ‘offended’ by insanity claim
11-11-29
***

Breivik declared criminally insane
11-11-29
***

Breivik’s ‘altered sense of reality’
11-11-15
***

Soviet Psych. Vladimir Bukovsky: Can Political Correctness be Worse than Leninism?

Can Political Correctness be Worse than Leninism?

Vladimir Bukovsky | Successful Nation

Vladimir Bukovsky (born. 1942) is one of the initiators of the dissident movement in the USSR, a neurophysiologist, and a writer. Since adolescence he was involved in anti-Soviet activities, and, as a result, expelled from school and university. In 1963 Bukovsky was arrested, judged to be mentally incapable and kept in a psychiatrist clinic by force. During this forced “treatment” he and his friend-in-misfortune Semion Glazman published “A Manual of Psychiatry for the Dissenters” – a tool for those whom communists tried to proclaim or make mentally incapable.

When Vladimir Bukovsky became widely known in the Soviets and in the West, the Soviet power decided to expel him. In 1976, this “hooligan”, of whom the Soviet authorities had more than enough, was traded for probably the best known political prisoner in the Western world – the Chilean communist leader Luis Corvalan. Mr Bukovsky settled in Great Britain, graduated from Cambridge University, and continued fighting communism. He was amongst the organizers of the boycott of the Moscow Olympic Games in 1980.

In 1978 he published his autobiography “To Build a Castle. My life as a Dissenter”, which later was translated into many languages. After the collapse of the USSR Mr Bukovsky visited Russia. At the invitation of the new authorities, he participated in the so called “USSR case” (July- October 1992) and acted as an official court expert of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. When preparing for the process he had an opportunity to get acquainted with many top secret documents from the CK USSR, including KGB documents from the so called Russian Presidential Archive (later this archive was thoroughly cleansed by “specialists”). On the basis of those documents he compiled one of the most interesting archives to this day (http://bukovsky-archives.net), and wrote his book “The Moscow Process” Московский процесс (1995) on that very communism trial which never took place.

Marketing of Madness: Are Independent Thinkers Mentally Ill?

Are Independent Thinkers Mentally Ill?

Mark Nestmann | Sovereign Society | September 16, 2010

A Lexicon of Lunacy: Metaphoric Malady, Moral Responsibility, and Psychiatry, by Thomas Szasz [*Amazon*]

Do you question authority? Fail to accept conventional wisdom? Lose your temper when you hear a politician make a promise that you know he or she can’t keep?

If so, you may be mentally ill, according to the most recent revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). In this revision, psychiatrists hope to add dozens of new mental disorders. Unfortunately, many of these so-called illnesses target people who merely think or behave differently from the majority population.

A case in point is “oppositional defiant disorder (ODD).” DSM defines ODD as “an ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior toward authority figures.” Symptoms include losing one’s temper, annoying people and being “touchy.” Other “disorders” include antisocial behavior, arrogance, cynicism and narcissism. Sounds like many of my readers!

While diagnosis of ODD “victims” focuses on children, there’s no reason why ODD can’t exist in adults. Indeed, ODD can evolve into “conduct disorder” (CD), which DSM defines as “wherein the rights of others or social norms are violated.”

Uh-oh. So violating “social norms” is now a mental illness as well.