For Your Information: [Censored by Norwegian Authorities & Media]
[A] Mr. Breivik’s ‘conviction’: Breivik’s 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; and remit to the Oslo District Court for the 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.
Email to Foreign Policy Editor:
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:56 PM
To: 'Office'; 'Editor'
Subject: RE: Foreign Policy: William Turville: Breivik Won.
Mr. Elias Groll
Editor
FOREIGN POLICY (FP)
11 Dupont Circle NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 728-7300 | Fax: (202) 728-7342
Dear Mr. Groll and Foreign Policy Editor,
RE: Foreign Policy: William Turville: Breivik Won.
For Your Information (PDF): [Censored by Norwegian Authorities & Media]
[A] Mr. Breivik’s ‘conviction’: Breivik’s 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; and remit to the Oslo District Court for the 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.
Specifically the Application requests the following orders:
[A.1] Set Aside the Judgements ‘Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling’
[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.
[A.3] If Defendant refuses to cooperate with Further Evidence proceedings; an order to change his plea to ‘guilty’; and/or ‘Non-Precedent’ Setting Declaratory Order
[A.4] If Failure of Justice Irregularity Does not Influence Conviction and/or Sentence Verdict; a ‘Non-Precedent Setting’ Declaratory Order
[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
Sincerely
Lara Johnstone
PO Box 5042
George East, 6539
Cell: (071) 170 1954