For Your Information:
[A] Inaccuracy of Mr. Breivik’s ‘conviction’: Breivik’s Conviction has been appealed by means of review.
On 27 August 2012 an application (PDF) 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.
Email to Globe and Mail: Public Editor: Sylvia Stead
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:01 PM
To: 'Psych: Paul Appelbaum'; 'PubEd: Syvlia Stead'
Subject: G&M: Paul Appelbaum: Never label political crimes, like Breivik’s, acts of insanity.
Public Editor: Sylvia Stead
The Globe and Mail
444 Front Street West,
Toronto, Ontario, M5V 2S9
CC: Prof. Paul Appelbaum
Dear Ms. Stead & Prof. Appelbaum,
RE: Paul Appelbaum: Never label political crimes, like Breivik’s, acts of insanity.
For Your Information:
[A] Inaccuracy of Mr. Breivik’s ‘conviction’: Breivik’s Conviction has been appealed by means of review.
On 27 August 2012 an application (PDF) 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.
Excerpt: Notice of Motion:
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW:
The application for review is based on the grounds of (A) Irregularities & Illegalities in the Proceedings before the Oslo District Court: in terms of (1) A Failure of Justice and Failure of a True and Correct Interpretation of the Facts; (2) Judicially Un-Investigated Facts; (3) Failure of Application of Mind and (4) Rejection of Admissible or Competent Evidence: (i) Prosecutor & Judges failure to examine objective and subjective necessity test; and (ii) Courts denial of due process to applicants Habeus Mentem and Amicus Curiae applications.
[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 Judgement’s Erroneous interpretation of Necessity related criminal law provisions and international necessity related human rights law.
[A.1.d] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Failure to conduct required Objective and Subjective Tests for Defendant’s Necessity Defence
[A.1.e] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Inadequate
[A.1.f] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s 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 Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Discriminatory Precedent
More detailed info in attached PDF.
Sincerely
Lara Johnstone
PO Box 5042
George East, 6539
South Africa
Cell: (071) 170 1954