ECHR: Oslo District Courts Breivik Necessity Judgement is Discriminatory & Ineffective Remedy

ECHR: European Court of Human Rights Application: Oslo District Courts Breivik Necessity Judgement is Discriminatory & Ineffective Remedy

Right wing extremist terrorist Anders Breivik deserves a free and fair trial, and an objective and subjective enquiry into his political necessity evidence; by the Left wing extremist Norwegian Government; upon the same Norwegian rule of law due process principles; as left wing extremist terrorist Nelson Mandela deserved a free and fair trial, and an impartial objective and subjective enquiry into the evidence for his defence; by the Right wing extremist South African Apartheid government.

19 January 2013 | Ecofeminist v Breivik | Andrea Muhrrteyn

Human Rights Violations complained of:

• Discrimination: 24 August 2012: Oslo District Court: Judge Wenche Arntzen: Norway v. Anders Breivik Necessity Judgement

• Discrimination and Denied Right to an Effective Remedy: Supreme Court: Secretary General Gunnar Bergby: 10 September 2012 Decision

• Discrimination and Denied Right to an Effective Remedy: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Head of Division: Berit Sollie: 15 November 2012 Ruling

The (i) 10 September 2012, administrative decision of Norway Supreme Court Secretary General Gunnar Bergby, denying Applicant Access to Court by refusing to process her 27 August 2012, Application for Review of the Oslo District Court: ‘Breivik Judgement’; and (ii) the 15 November 2012 ruling by Parliamentary Ombudsman, that Secretary General’s Gunnar Bergby’s administrative decision, was a ‘judgement/decision by a court of law’, thereby justifying his refusal to order Secretary General Bergby to process Applicants Application for Review; were (iii) violations of applicants right to an Effective Remedy and (iv) were motivated acts of ideological discrimination against the ‘right wing’ or ‘cultural conservatives’, and against anyone – particularly anyone who is not ‘right wing’ -- who opposes, or objects to Ideological Discrimination against ‘right wing’ (cultural conservatives).

Supreme Crt. Sec. Gen. Gunnar Bergby Response to Application to Review Breivik Judgement

10 Sept: Ruling by Norway Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby: No Legal Standing

Response: If Mr. Breivik wants to deny himself and other White Nationalists, their right to the court conducting a full impartial objective and subjective enquiry into their necessity evidence, that is their choice. It is my assertion that the Breivik judgement necessity ruling is discriminatory, by setting a precedent that can deny (or can due to ignorance deny themselves, by lacking the knowledge to assert their right thereto); other necessity activists an objective and subjective examination of their necessity evidence.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminist vs. Breivik | 11 September 2012

Ruling by Supreme Court of Norway: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby in: Application for review of Oslo District Court Judgement of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24)

Reference is made to your e-mails sent 27 August, 28 August and 31 August 2012 regarding the above mentioned matter.

I wish to draw your attention to the Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act section 306 (a copy in English is enclosed). 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.

Consequently, the Supreme Court of Norway will not be able to comply with the request set forth in your e-mails. Further requests and applications from you will neither be handled nor answered by the Supreme Court.

AU Press Council Complaint of Inaccuracy by Sky News AU: Breivik Case Has Not Formally Ended

AU Press Council Complaint of Inaccuracy by Sky News AU: Breivik Case Has Not Formally Ended

Request Correction of Inaccuracy in: Sky News - Australia: No Breivik appeal as case ends. The case has not ‘ended’.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminist vs. Breivik |08 September 2012

Complaint (PDF) submitted to Australian Press Council: Re: Inaccuracy in Sky News.AU Online Article: No Breivik appeal as case ends.

Request Correction of Inaccuracy in: Sky News - Australia: No Breivik appeal as case ends

The case has not ‘ended’:

[1] 27 August Application to Supreme Court for Review of Breivik Judgement.

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 and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of further evidence 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.

Additionally the application for review also requested an Order to Set Aside the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement’s failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint (PDF) against Judge Wenche Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges (Case 2012-072 ), as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5) principles and general ECHR public accountability transparency (Lithgow & Others v. United Kingdom) principles.

PCC Complaint: The Guardian: Inaccuracy of Breivik conviction; Guardian's Liberal White Guilt Bigotry& Breiviks Possible Fraud

PCC Complaint: The Guardian: Inaccuracy of Breivik conviction; Guardian's Liberal White Guilt Bigotry& Breiviks Possible Fraud

Complaint issues: [A] Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik’s ‘conviction’: Conviction has been appealed by means of review; [B] Possible Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik’s inspiration being the ‘far right’ ; [C] White Guilt Liberal Bigotry to Muslims Implying they are incapable of hearing criticism: challenging alleged ‘negative attitudes’.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminists vs. Breivik | 29 August 2012

Complaint submitted to Press Complaints Commission against The Guardian: Sindre Bangstad: Article: After Anders Breivik's conviction, Norway must confront Islamophobia (PDF).

This complaint refers to a violation of Editors Code. 1. Accuracy, and relates to the following statements made by Mr. Bangstad in his article: After Anders Breivik's conviction, Norway must confront Islamophobia[1]:

[1] Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik’s ‘conviction’: 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.

[B] Possible Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik’s inspiration being the ‘far right’

[C] White Guilt Liberal Bigotry to Muslims Implying they are incapable of hearing criticism: challenging alleged ‘negative attitudes’.

Pentti Linkolian Wild Law Applic to Norway Supreme Court: Review Breivik Judgement Necessity Ruling & Conviction

Pentti Linkolian Wild Law Applic to Norway Supreme Court: Review Breivik Judgement Necessity Ruling & Conviction

Three aspects that are Wild Law or Ecologically Focussed: [1] Courts Breivik Judgement is a Left vs. Right Wing Blame Game Judgement, not an Ecological Root Cause Problem Solving Judgement; [2] Denying Breivik his ‘Necessity’ Defence Right to an Objective and Subjective Test of his Evidence sets horrific Precedent for Denying other Activists, including EcoWarrior Necessity Activists their Necessity Test Rights; [3] Judgement’s Transparency Failure violates Aarhus Environment Transparency Convention principles and public accountability impartiality principles.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminists vs. Breivik | 29 August 2012

The Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist Wild Law essence of my argument is based upon the work of Chris Clugston (Scarcity), that the Judgement - like most Patriarchal Anthropocentric legalism - is about polarisation and parasitisim, not about problem solving, which requires confronting the ecological and psychological integrity root causes of the dispute.

Secondly, the 'necessity defence' argument is also indirectly related to my environmental activism focus. If the court denies Breivik the required objective and subjective test, that is required for any defendant who pleads to necessity... then some day when some Pentti Linkolian eco-warrior goes out and commits some eco-necessity criminal act... then the Breivik precedent can be used to deny that eco-warrior a fair trial, by denying them their right that their eco-warrior evidence be impartially examined by the court, both objectively and subjectively.

My application for review requests the court to set aside the 'necessity judgement' and consequently the 'guilt finding' and to remit the case back to the Oslo Court for the hearing of further evidence in accordance with the requirements of the necessity defence, to examine Breivik's evidence both objectively and subjectively.

Breivik Judgement Review filed with Norway Supreme Court; to Set Aside Necessity & Conviction Rulings

Breivik Judgement Review filed with Norway Supreme Court; to Set Aside Necessity & Conviction Rulings

Application for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement Ruling; to Set Aside the Judgements (1) ‘Necessity (Nodrett) Ruling’ and (2) 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.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminist vs. Breivik | 27 August 2012

Application submitted to Norway Supreme Court for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement Ruling; to Set Aside the Judgements (1) ‘Necessity (Nodrett) Ruling’ and (2) 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. [Notice to Respondents]

Respondents:
First: OSLO DISTRICT COURT
Second: KINGDOM OF NORWAY (Prosecution)
Third: ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK
Fourth: VICTIMS FAMILIES

Excerpts from Notice of Motion.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the applicant intends to apply for leave to review against parts of the judgement by Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Fagdommer: Arne Lyng; Meddommere: Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff, delivered on 24 August 2012 (herein after referred to as the “Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement”).