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”).

Parl. Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943: Slow Case Processing of Norway v Breivik Complaint to Sec. for Supv. Comm of Judges

Parl. Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943: Slow Case Processing of Norway v Breivik Complaint to Secretariat for Supv. Committee of Judges: Against Justice Tore Schei | Judge Wenche Arntzen | Judge Nina Opsahl

[SOM: 2012-1943]: Re: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: Klage: Justice Tore Schei | Judge Wenche Arntzen | Judge Nina Opsahl

20 July 2012 | Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik

On 04 July 2012, I filed two complaints with the Ombudsmans office, via their official complaints procedure.

On 20 July I received a response from the Ombudsman offices by land mail (Ref: 2012/1943), in response to my complaint to the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges:

“On 30 May 2012 complainant filed three complaints with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges respectively against respectively: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl. On 06 June 2012 complainant noted that she had not yet received any information detailing the process and procedure for her complaints, and additionally provided the completed signed “Skjema for klage på dommere til Tilsynsutvalget for dommere (TU)” forms for her complaints. On 02 July 2012-07-02 complainant noted: “I am still waiting for the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, to provide me with a Case and/or Reference Number for my complaint/s, including details about processing of my complaint/s in Norway v. Breivik matter against respectively: (1) Judge Nina Opsahl, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Chief Justice Tore Schei.””

As per the Ombudsman's Instructions, I again contacted the Secretariat Supervisory Committee of Judges for a response, and noted that in the absence of such a response, I shall again contact the Ombudsman, to provide his Office with the information to proceed in the matter.

[Update] RettsNorge/JustNorway: Herman Berge: ‘Corrupt Appointment of Judges renders Breivik Court Case Null & Void’

[Update] RettsNorge/JustNorway: Herman Berge: ‘Corrupt Appointment of Judges renders Breivik Court Case Null & Void’

Updated & Accurate Translation:

Herman J. Berge | Retts Norge | 05 July 2012 (Updated & Translated from 02 July)

Herman J Berge is a Norwegian Lawyer known for winning Norway's largest single payment to a private person, for his clients Amelia and Einar Riis. He is currently the editor of RettsNorge/Just Norway. RettsNorge's purpose is to provide a critical look at Norway's application of the law in its courts. RettsNorge believes that too many people experience unbalanced and unfair decisions in Norway's courts, and even worse that many of the legal representatives do not serve their clients interests. On this issue the evidence is huge; the most recent case being a suit brought against Adv. Christian Haneborg, who according to Business Today is being sued for 50 million for having deceived his previous clients. RettsNorge wishes to educate citizens about the reality behind Norway's legal propaganda image. For forty years the media have been silent, while sitting on burning data; and instead of doing their duty as the fourth estate to hold power accountable, the media have censored evidence of the corruption of Norway's courts to maintain good relationships with the power elite. RettsNorge hopes to illuminate legal reality as it truly is, not as most wish it to be, or pretend it to be.

In the Updated and Accurately Translated Article: MAIN HEARING IN BREIVIK-CASE IS INVALID, Mr. Berge writes, among others:

“The two judges in the Breivik-case were actually "picked" for the job, hence the case was not distributed to the two judges according to law. A further consequence of this unprecedented procedure is that these two judges (from an objective point of view) are considered to be disqualified and the judges should obviously have recused themselves, see the Norwegian Court Administration Act § 108 (NCAA). Consequently the court was not legally constituted, and there has to be a retrial.

[..] Allow me to warn those of you who have not yet discovered it, that Mr. Engebretsen’s special private procedure, which seems to have been hailed by the media, is in itself a confirmation that this procedure is neither uncommon nor considered unfortunate among the leaders and deputy leaders in Norway, which is alarming. The fact that the press does not oppose or even react against this, but rather seems to admire that descendants of the country's old elite now has been specially selected to continue in their ancestors tracks, are equally alarming.

As you will see from the above, we are not faced with a random assignment of cases, but rather with a deliberate unlawful selection of judges, which in itself is a confirmation of a judicial system and a court in decay.”

Conspiracy & Corruption in Judge's Chambers in Breivik Case

Conspiracy & Corruption in Judge's Chambers in Breivik Case

Court Censorship of Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 14 June 2012

On 13 June 2012 Complaints against Mette Yvonne Larsen, Siv Hallgren, Frode Elgesem, Geir Lippestad, Vibeke Hein Baera, Tord Jordet and Odd Ivar Aursnes Gron were submitted to the Norwegian Bar Association for Violation of: CCBE Code of Ethics: Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial, to (1) deny Defendant his Political Necessity Treason Trial; and (2) support Corruption of the Court to deny submittal to the Court of Controversial Evidence related to: [1] Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection. On 14 June 2012, the coverup in court continued...

2012-05-31 AM (VG): Breivik Trial: Day 28: Police Investigation & Expert Witnesses: Prof. Jørg Mørland | Geir Egil Løken

2012-05-31 AM (VG): Breivik Trial: Day 28: Police Investigation & Expert Witnesses:

National Public Health Institute: Executive Director of Forensic Toxicology and Drug Abuse: Prof. Jørg Mørland | KRIPOS: Interrogator: Geir Egil Løken |

Andrea Muhrrteyn | 31 May 2012 | VG.NO (Google Translate)

Anders Breivik Behring:
- You mentioned "Laser Man", as I have said is that there is an assumption that he is a militant nationalist based on information available, and not an assertion. In the case, ie, the statement that there should be 15,000 militant nationalists in Norway, I specified that it is 15,000 which is likely to be militant nationalists. But I have not said that people are ready with weapons. It is also true figure for the European 300,000. There are also individuals who are inclined to be militant extremists. The uniform of course I thought at first was totally unimportant in the big picture, but still important. - And rightly so specific, I do mistakes like everyone else, and that word, the use of "expropriation", it's wrong then. So I make the mistake and I, like everyone else. And I'm not afraid to admit it.

2012-05-31 PM (VG): Breivik Trial: Day 28: Expert Witnesses: Terje Emberland | Tore Bjørgo | Øyvind Stromme

2012-05-31 PM (VG): Breivik Trial: Day 28: Expert Witnesses:

Holocaust Center Historian: Terje Emberland | Professor Tore Bjørgo (Right wing violence ideologies and terrorist rationality) | Eurofascist Author & Researcher on Right Wing Extremism: Øyvind Stromme

Andrea Muhrrteyn | 31 May 2012 | VG.NO (Google Translate)

Behring Anders Breivik:
- Well first of all, when it comes to fascism, there is a broad term, and as I described it, there is support for the one-party system and therefore there is left - and right fascists. I do not support one-party system, but need a transitional period of twenty years to introduce the concept of democracy. When it comes to what you mentioned that I had said the Nordic race, I have not used the word race, nor in the compendium. And I have also booked me on the use of the word, I have used the ethnic group and not the word race. I have not used the word Germanic - I've used the word Nordic. I also have reservations about using the word Germanic because it has relevance to another ideology that I do not support. I have not argued for Norwegian superiority, but survival will be the consequence. - For if nothing is done, the Norwegian ethnic group will be deconstructed within 150 years. And after 200 years there will be individuals with blue eyes. When we talk about survival and supremacy. So konspriasjonsteorier: The so-called Arabian theory is a theory, for it has been documented, including in my compendium. As far as I know, has not Emberland managed to refute the documentary evidence. - And, well ... The essence is that the Norwegian people have never been asked if they allow the country transformed into a multikutlturelt society. The nationalists have been under pressure after the Second World War is not something I claim, it is a fact I have absolutely no national socialist. I support Israel's struggle against jihadism. I think everyone, regardless of ethnic background, are brothers, so long as they assimilierer, and as long as they fight the same. The very contrary to what was said then. Thank you.

Complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges

Complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media), 15 (Collegial Intervention).

06 June Update: Letter to Supv. Comm. of Judges

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 30 May 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:15 PM
To: 'Supv. Comm. Judges'
Cc: 'Norway Supreme Court Admin'; Ch.Justice Tore Schei
Subject: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: Klage: Justice Tore Schei: Brudd på: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12.

Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges,
National Courts Administration,
Tel: 73 56 70 00 | Fax: 73 56 70 01
E-mail: Supv. Comm. Judges (**@domstol.no)

CC: Chief Justice Tore Schei
Norway Supreme Court | Norges Høyesterett
Post: Postboks 8016 Dep., 0030 Oslo, Norge.
Høyesteretts plass 1, Oslo
Telefon: 22 03 59 00 Telefaks: 22 33 23 55
E-post: Norway Supreme Court Admin (**@hoyesterett.no)
E-post: Ch.Justice Tore Schei (**@hoyesterett.no)

Complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media), 15 (Collegial Intervention).

Complaint against Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges

Complaint against Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media).

06 June Update: Letter to Supv. Comm. of Judges

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v Breivik | 30 May 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:10 PM
To: 'Supv. Comm. Judges'
Cc: Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints; NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court; NO Oslo District Court: Admin; Judge Wenche Arntzen (**@domstol.no)
Subject: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: Klage: Judge Wenche Arntzen: Brudd på: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12.

Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges,
National Courts Administration,
Tel: 73 56 70 00 | Fax: 73 56 70 01
E-mail: Supv. Comm. Judges (**@domstol.no)

CC: Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen
Judge: Oslo District Court
Postboks 8023 Dep., 0030 Oslo | C.J. Hambros Plass 4, 0164 Oslo
Sentralbord 22 03 52 00 | Tel/Faks: 22 03 5212 | 22 03 53 54
E-post: **@domstol.no, **@postmottak@domstol.no
E-post: Judge Wenche Arntzen (**@domstol.no)

Complaint against Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media).

Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges

Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media).

06 June Update: Letter to Supv. Comm. of Judges

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 30 May 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:07 PM
To: 'Supv. Comm. Judges'
Cc: Judge Nina Opsahl; NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court; NO Oslo District Court: Admin
Subject: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: Klage: Judge Nina Opsahl: Brudd på: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12.

Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges,
National Courts Administration,
Tel: 73 56 70 00 | Fax: 73 56 70 01
E-mail: Supv. Comm. Judges (**@domstol.no)

CC: Judge Nina Opsahl
Judge: Oslo District Court
Postboks 8023 Dep., 0030 Oslo | C.J. Hambros Plass 4, 0164 Oslo
Sentralbord 22 03 52 00 Tel/Faks: 22 03 5212 | 22 03 53 54
E-post: **@domstol.no, **@domstol.no
E-post: Judge Nina Opsahl (**@domstol.no)

Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media).

2012-05-30 PM (VG): Breivik Trial: Day 27: Police Investigation:

2012-05-30 PM (VG): Breivik Trial: Day 27: Police Investigation:

PST: Police Supt.: Dag Uppheim | KRIPOS: Police Supt: Vidar Sæther | KRIPOS: Police Supt: Anette Seip

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | VG.NO

08:36: Comments from VG Marianne Vika:
Today there are six from the Oslo police, who will testify about the extensive investigation of 22 July attacks.

* Following is the Nissen police superintendent Dag Uppheim from the Police Security Service (PST) turn. He led the group that underwent Breivik's 1518-page manifesto.

* Following is the police captain Vidar Saether from the NCIS. He will testify about the investigation of alleged Breivik's organization Knights Templar. We are always ready to answer any questions you may have about the trial or other questions about the terror case.

* Following is a police superintendent Anette Seip from the NCIS. She led the group that investigates Breivik purchase and procurement of equipment prior to the terrorist attack. They have looked at both the purchase of bomb ingredients, weapons and other things.

2012-05-30 AM (VG): Breivik Trial: Day 27: Police Investigation:

2012-05-30 AM (VG): Breivik Trial: Day 27: Police Investigation: Police Chief Kenneth Wilberg | KRIPOS: Alf Nissen | PST: Dag Uppheim

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | VG.NO (Google Translate)

08:36: Comments from VG Marianne Vika:
Today there are six from the Oslo police, who will testify about the extensive investigation of 22 July attacks.

* First is the police chief Kenneth Wilberg from Oslo police. He will explain how the investigation team has been working and what is their mandate.

* Then the police captain Alf Nissen from the NCIS in the witness box. He is second in command of the analysis group, which has served with the tactical overview of the investigation. The group has always received the material from all the other subgroups and systematized it.

* Following is the Nissen police superintendent Dag Uppheim from the Police Security Service (PST) turn. He led the group that underwent Breivik's 1518-page manifesto.

Complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei: Violation of CCBE Code of Ethics

Complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei: Violation of: 2.1 (Independence), 2.2 (Honesty), 2.4 (Multiculti Legal Respect) & 4,1 (Rule of Law Conduct) of CCBE Code of Ethics (Norwegian translation)

29-05-12: 10:54: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-12: 12:02: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee
29-05-12: 12:57: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-12: 12:57: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee
29-05-12: 13:33: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-12: 13:33: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee


Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 28 May 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:18 PM
To: 'Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints'; 'Disciplinary Committee'; 'Judge Moe'
Cc: 'Court Administration'; 'Dep.Sec.Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard'; 'Norway Supreme Court Admin'; 'Ch.Justice Tore Schei'
Subject: Klage: Tore Schei: Brudd på: 2.1, 2.2, 2,4 og 4,1 CCBEs etiske regler | Complaint: Tore Schei: Violation of: 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 & 4,1 of CCBE Code of Ethics

Disciplinary Complaints
The Norwegian Bar Association | Den Norske Advokatforening
Email: Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints (**@advokatforeningen.no)

Head: Judge Ernst Moe
Sec: Beate Sundstrøm
Disciplinary Committee | Disiplinærnemnden
Disciplinary Committee: (**@jus.no)
E-post: Judge Moe (**@domstol.no)

CC: Chief Justice Tore Schei
c/o: Dep. Sec. Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard
Norway Supreme Court | Norges Høyesterett
E-post: Norway Supreme Court Admin (**@hoyesterett.no)
E-post: Ch.Justice Tore Schei (**@hoyesterett.no)

Complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei: Violation of: 2.1 (Independence), 2.2 (Honesty), 2.4 (Multiculti Legal Respect) & 4,1 (Rule of Law Conduct) of CCBE Code of Ethics (Norwegian translation) | Klage mot dommer Tore Schei Brudd på: 2.1 (Uavhengighet), 2.2 (ærlighet), 2,4 (Multiculti Juridisk Respekt) og 4,1 (Rule of Law gjennomføre) CCBEs etiske regler (norsk oversettelse)

Complaint against Kjersti Buun Nygaard: Violation of CCBE Code of Ethics

Complaint against Kjersti Buun Nygaard: Violation of: 2.1 (Independence), 2.2 (Honesty), 2.4 (Multiculti Legal Respect) & 4,1 (Rule of Law Conduct) of CCBE Code of Ethics (Norwegian translation)

29-05-12: 11:02: Response from 'Disiplinærnemnden for advokater'
29-05-12: 12:11: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee
29-05-12: 13:03: Response from 'Disiplinærnemnden for advokater'
29-05-12: 13:03: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee
29-05-12: 13:37: Response from 'Disiplinærnemnden for advokater'
29-05-12: 13:37: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee
29-05-12: 16:26: Response from 'Disiplinærnemnden for advokater'
29-05-12: 16:26: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 28 May 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:10 PM
To: 'Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints'; 'Disciplinary Committee'; 'Judge Moe'
Cc: 'Court Administration'; 'Dep.Sec.Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard'
Subject: Klage: Kjersti Buun Nygaard: Brudd på: 2.1, 2.2, 2,4 og 4,1 CCBEs etiske regler | Complaint: Kjersti Buun Nygaard: Violation of: 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 & 4,1 of CCBE Code of Ethics

Disciplinary Complaints
The Norwegian Bar Association | Den Norske Advokatforening
Email: Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints (**@advokatforeningen.no)

Head: Judge Ernst Moe
Sec: Beate Sundstrøm
Disciplinary Committee | Disiplinærnemnden
Disciplinary Committee: (**@jus.no)
E-post: Judge Moe (**@domstol.no)

CC: Dep. Sec. Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard
Court Administration | Domstol Administrasjonen
E-post: Court Administration (**@domstoladministrasjonen.no)
E-post: Dep.Sec.Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard (**@hoyesterett.no)

Complaint against Deputy Secretary General: Kjersti Buun Nygaard: Violation of: 2.1 (Independence), 2.2 (Honesty), 2.4 (Multiculti Legal Respect) & 4,1 (Rule of Law Conduct) of CCBE Code of Ethics (Norwegian translation) | Klage mot dommer Tore Schei Brudd på: 2.1 (Uavhengighet), 2.2 (ærlighet), 2,4 (Multiculti Juridisk Respekt) og 4,1 (Rule of Law gjennomføre) CCBEs etiske regler (norsk oversettelse)

Complaint against Judge Wenche Arntzen: Violation of CCBE Code of Ethics

Complaint against Judge Wenche Arntzen: Violation of: 2.1 (Independence), 2.2 (Honesty), 2.4 (Multiculti Legal Respect) & 4,1 (Rule of Law Conduct) of CCBE Code of Ethics (Norwegian translation)

29-05-12: 11:05: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-2012: 12:19: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee
29-05-12: 13:08: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-2012: 13:08: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee
29-05-12: 13:39: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-2012: 13:39: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee



Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 28 May 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:05 PM
To: 'Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints'; 'Disciplinary Committee'; 'Judge Moe'
Cc: NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court (**@domstol.no); NO Oslo District Court: Admin (**@domstol.no); Judge Wenche Arntzen (**@domstol.no)
Subject: Klage: Wenche E Arntzen: Brudd på: 2.1, 2.2, 2,4 og 4,1 CCBEs etiske regler | Complaint: Wenche E Arntzen: Violation of: 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 & 4,1 of CCBE Code of Ethics

Disciplinary Complaints
The Norwegian Bar Association | Den Norske Advokatforening
Email: Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints (**@advokatforeningen.no)

Head: Judge Ernst Moe
Sec: Beate Sundstrøm
Disciplinary Committee | Disiplinærnemnden
Disciplinary Committee: (**@jus.no)
E-post: Judge Moe (**@domstol.no)

CC: Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen
c/o Registrar of the Oslo District Court
E-post: **@domstol.no, **@domstol.no
E-post: Judge Wenche Arntzen (**@domstol.no)

Complaint against Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: Violation of: 2.1 (Independence), 2.2 (Honesty), 2.4 (Multiculti Legal Respect) & 4,1 (Rule of Law Conduct) of CCBE Code of Ethics (Norwegian translation) | Klage mot dommer Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen Brudd på: 2.1 (Uavhengighet), 2.2 (ærlighet), 2,4 (Multiculti Juridisk Respekt) og 4,1 (Rule of Law gjennomføre) CCBEs etiske regler (norsk oversettelse)

Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: Violation of CCBE Code of Ethics

Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: Violation of: 2.1 (Independence), 2.2 (Honesty), 2.4 (Multiculti Legal Respect) & 4,1 (Rule of Law Conduct) of CCBE Code of Ethics (Norwegian translation)

29-05-12: 11:17: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-12: 12:25: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee
29-05-12: 13:11: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-12: 13:11: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee
29-05-12: 13:41: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-12: 13:41: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 28 May 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:02 PM
To: 'Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints'; 'Disciplinary Committee'; 'Judge Moe'
Cc: NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court (**@domstol.no); NO Oslo District Court: Admin (**@domstol.no); Judge Nina Opsahl (**@domstol.no)
Subject: Klage: Nina Opsahl: Brudd på: 2.1, 2.2, 2,4 og 4,1 CCBEs etiske regler | Complaint: Nina Opsahl: Violation of: 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 & 4,1 of CCBE Code of Ethics

Disciplinary Complaints
The Norwegian Bar Association | Den Norske Advokatforening
Email: Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints (**@advokatforeningen.no)

Head: Judge Ernst Moe
Sec: Beate Sundstrøm
Disciplinary Committee | Disiplinærnemnden
Disciplinary Committee: (**@jus.no)
E-post: Judge Moe (**@domstol.no)

CC: Judge Nina Opsahl
c/o Registrar of the Oslo District Court
E-post: **@domstol.no, **@domstol.no
E-post: Judge Nina Opsahl (**@domstol.no)

Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: Violation of: 2.1 (Independence), 2.2 (Honesty), 2.4 (Multiculti Legal Respect) & 4,1 (Rule of Law Conduct) of CCBE Code of Ethics (Norwegian translation) | Klage mot dommer Nina Opsahl Brudd på: 2.1 (Uavhengighet), 2.2 (ærlighet), 2,4 (Multiculti Juridisk Respekt) og 4,1 (Rule of Law gjennomføre) CCBEs etiske regler (norsk oversettelse)

258 Norwegian Psychologists Association Members Notified that Breivik Acquittal is Justified by Media's Population-Terrorism Connection

258 Norwegian Psychologists Association Members Notified that Breivik Acquittal is Justified by Media's Population-Terrorism Connection

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 22 May 2012

From: Habeus Mentem
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 8:09 PM
To: Norwegian Psychological Association Members
Subject: [Psyk.For] Breivik Acquittal Justified by Media’s Population-Terrorism Connection?

Dear Members of Norway Psykolog Foreningen,

1. Do the Media deliberately and intentionally CENSOR NON-VIOLENT PROBLEM SOLVING, to create a socio-political pressure cooker environment, for their 'If It Bleeds, it Leads' Corporate Profit from Terrorism?

2. If Breivik proves his Political Necessity arguments -- i.e. 'Breivik brutally killed 77 to save 770 million from impending Islamic colonisation (massively censored from public discourse by media)' -- should he be acquitted?

3. In the absence of a media censorship campaign, Breivik would have raised his complaints non-violently. What has been the media and Oslo Court's response to non-violent EcoFeminist applications on behalf of Breivik receiving a free and fair trial?

4. Is there a massive media censorship campaign to censor the information that there are liberals, environmentalists, feminists, who care about whether Breivik receives a free and fair trial?


***********************************************************************
FACT: MEDIA CENSORSHIP WAS BREIVIK'S PRIMARY TERRORISM MOTIVATION:
***********************************************************************

Breivik's primary final motivation for Oslo/Utoya Terror Attacks was the Norwegian Media's Censorship:

Oslo Organized Crime Police Investigation Report "Explanation of 22 July 2011":

"[Breivik] has been censored for years. He mentions Dagbladet and Aftenposten as those who among other things have censored him..... He says that he also wrote “essays” that he tried to publish via the usual channels, but that they were all censored..... As long as more than twelve were executed, the operation will still be a success. The experts ask how the number twelve comes into consideration. Twelve dead are needed to penetrate the censorship wall, he explains..... The goal was to execute as many as possible. At least 30. It was horrible, but the number had to be assessed based on the global censorship limit...... He believes he had to kill at least twelve, because there is a censorship-wall preventing an open debate about what is happening in the country..... So I knew I had to cross a certain threshold to exceed the censorship-wall of the international media."

NO Supreme Crt: Dep Sec Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard Response to EcoFeminist Indigenous Rights Application to Norway Supreme Court in Breivik Matter

NO Supreme Crt: Dep Sec Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard Response to EcoFeminist Indigenous Rights Application to Norway Supreme Court in Breivik Matter

Judgement from the Oslo District Court: My legal application (per ecolaw email) - Affidavit part C: District Court Monocultural Masculine Insecurity EU Supremacy, paragraphs 30 to 36 - informs you of the Judgement from the Oslo District Court which could politely be paraphrased as ‘Judge Opshal and Arntzen don’t have the honour and integrity to officially deny Johnstone’s application, let alone provide her with written reasons for why we are denying it, cause Johnstone practices problem solving, not parasite leeching, so Johnstone has fuck all followers, to force us to do our jobs, so we will just pretend Johnstone does not exist, hence Johnstone's applications to this court also don’t exist’.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 15 May 2012

From: Andrea Muhrrteyn
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 2:40 PM
To: DO-B: Muslim Soc Trondheim (**@msit.no); DO-B: Muslim Soc Trondheim: Imam (**@msit.no); DO-B: Muslim Soc Trondheim: Mehran Emadipour (**@hotmail.com)
Subject: [11.MuslimSocTrondheim.JJOksvold] NO Supreme Crt: Dep Sec Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard Response to SHARP Application

TO: [11] MUSLIM SOC. OF TRONDHEIM: JJ OKSVOLD

[04] NO REFUGEE COUNCIL: ELISABETH RASMUSSEN [05] UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR: INDIGENOUS RIGHTS: JAMES ANAYA [06] ELENA: LEG.ADV: FRIHAGEN, RISNES, BLEKASTAD, DAHL [07] ELENA: NOAS: ANDREAS FURUSETH [08] MINISTER OF CULTURE: ANNIKEN HUITFELDT [09] PROGRESS PARTY: SIV JENSEN [10] CHURCH OF NORWAY: BERIT HAGEN AGOY [11] MUSLIM SOC. OF TRONDHEIM: JJ OKSVOLD [12] NUPI: HELGE LURAS

Please find attached my PDF response to Supreme Court: Deputy Secretary General: Kjersti Buun Nygaard refusal to provide a case number for my case.

(I) Error in Supreme Court: Deputy Secretary General: Kjersti Buun Nygaard Response to SHARP Application to Supreme Court for Declaratory Orders and Review of Oslo District Court’s Decisions; (II) Notice of Commencement of Hungerstrike in absence of Supreme Court Case number by 17:00 on 22 May 2012.

PDF Includes:

In the absence of notification of Supreme Court case number for my SHARP application for two Declaratory Orders and Review of Oslo District Court’s decisions (judgements), by 17:00 hrs on 22 May 2012, the applicant shall embark on a liquids only hungerstrike.

Previous Hungerstrikes Background Information:

* 1999: Support for CA Dept of Corrections Investigation of Demian Johnson 'black guerrilla' Gang Label
* 2001: Support for Pres. Bush & 400 Military & Government Disclosure Project Witnesses
* 2003: Support for Radical Honoursty Disclosure of Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS


Respectfully,

LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se
PO Box 5042 George East,
South Africa
Tel/Fax: (044) --- ----
Email: **@mweb.co.za

1,278 Norwegian Editors & Journalists Notified that Breivik Acquittal is Justified by Media's Population-Terrorism Connection

1,278 Norwegian Editors & Journalists Notified that Breivik Acquittal is Justified by Media's Population-Terrorism Connection

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 14 May 2012

From: Habeus Mentem
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 12:01 AM
To: Nowegian Political Parties, National, Regional and Local Politicians, Editors and Journalists, NGO's etc.
Subject: Breivik Acquittal Justified by Media's Massive Censorship of Oslo Crt Proceedings?

Dear Norwegian Editor/Journalist,

1. Do the Media deliberately and intentionally CENSOR NON-VIOLENT PROBLEM SOLVING, to create a socio-political pressure cooker environment, for their 'If It Bleeds, it Leads' Corporate Profit from Terrorism?

2. If Breivik proves his Political Necessity arguments -- i.e. 'Breivik brutally killed 77 to save 770 million from impending Islamic colonisation, massively censored from public discourse by media' -- should he be acquitted?

3. In the absence of a media censorship campaign, Breivik would have raised his complaints non-violently. What has been the media and Oslo Court's response to non-violent applications on behalf of Breivik receiving a free and fair trial?

4. Is there a massive media censorship campaign to censor the information that there are liberals, environmentalists, feminists, who care about whether Breivik receives a free and fair trial?

482 Norwegian Lawyers & Law Professors Notified that Breivik Acquittal is Justified by Media's Population-Terrorism Connection

482 Norwegian Lawyers & Law Professors Notified that Breivik Acquittal is Justified by Media's Population-Terrorism Connection

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 16 May 2012

From: Habeus Mentem
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 12:01 AM
To: Nowegian Political Parties, National, Regional and Local Politicians, Editors and Journalists, NGO's, Oslo University Professors & Lecturers, Lawyers etc.
Subject: Breivik Acquittal Justified by Media's Massive Censorship of Oslo Crt Proceedings?

Dear Advocates / Law Professors,

1. Do the Media deliberately and intentionally CENSOR NON-VIOLENT PROBLEM SOLVING, to create a socio-political pressure cooker environment, for their 'If It Bleeds, it Leads' Corporate Profit from Terrorism?

2. If Breivik proves his Political Necessity arguments -- i.e. 'Breivik brutally killed 77 to save 770 million from impending Islamic colonisation, massively censored from public discourse by media' -- should he be acquitted?

3. In the absence of a media censorship campaign, Breivik would have raised his complaints non-violently. What has been the media and Oslo Court's response to non-violent applications on behalf of Breivik receiving a free and fair trial?

4. Is there a massive media censorship campaign to censor the information that there are liberals, environmentalists, feminists, who care about whether Breivik receives a free and fair trial?

1,230 University of Oslo Professors, Lecturers and Students Notified that Breivik Acquittal is Justified by Media's Population-Terrorism Connection

1,230 University of Oslo Professors, Lecturers and Students Notified that Breivik Acquittal is Justified by Media's Population-Terrorism Connection

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 16 May 2012

From: Habeus Mentem
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 12:01 AM
To: Nowegian Political Parties, National, Regional and Local Politicians, Editors and Journalists, NGO's, Oslo University Professors & Lecturers, etc.
Subject: Breivik Acquittal Justified by Media's Massive Censorship of Oslo Crt Proceedings?

Dear Oslo University Professor, Administrator or Student,,

1. Do the Media deliberately and intentionally CENSOR NON-VIOLENT PROBLEM SOLVING, to create a socio-political pressure cooker environment, for their 'If It Bleeds, it Leads' Corporate Profit from Terrorism?

2. If Breivik proves his Political Necessity arguments -- i.e. 'Breivik brutally killed 77 to save 770 million from impending Islamic colonisation, massively censored from public discourse by media' -- should he be acquitted?

3. In the absence of a media censorship campaign, Breivik would have raised his complaints non-violently. What has been the media and Oslo Court's response to non-violent applications on behalf of Breivik receiving a free and fair trial?

4. Is there a massive media censorship campaign to censor the information that there are liberals, environmentalists, feminists, who care about whether Breivik receives a free and fair trial?