Inaccuracy: Request Correction: Article: "Breivik case formally over as appeals period expires without challenge from far-right guman" (as published in among others Edmonton Journal)
The case has not ‘formally ended’.
[1] 27 August Application to Supreme Court for Review of Breivik Judgement.
On 27 August 2012 an application[1] 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.
[1] http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/27-aug-12-review-applic.html
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[2] against Judge Wenche Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Supervisory Committee for Judges (Case 2012-072 ), as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5) and general ECHR public accountability transparency (Lithgow & Others v. United Kingdom) principles.
[2] http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/12-072-judge-wenche-arntzen.html
The Norwegian Supreme Court Registrar initially refused to respond to the Application, or to provide reasons for their refusal. A complaint of Slow Case Processing against the Supreme Court Registrar was submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on 02 September 2012. On 10 September the Secretary General of the Supreme Court: Gunnar Bergby responded[3], by refusing to issue a case number or refer the application to another relevant court, citing alleged lack of locus standi/legal standing.
[3] http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/11-sept-legal-standing.html
On 11 September, the applicant provided a detailed response to Mr. Gunnar Bergby[3], clarifying her legal standing in terms of (I) her applications to the Oslo District Court, which were never officially refused; and still pending resolution with the Supervisory Committee for Judges; (II) her legal standing in terms of her ‘legal interest’ in the matter, in terms of The Dispute Act: Section 29-8: Legal Standing: (2): “A person who is not a party to the action may appeal against rulings that relate to their rights or obligation’. It is a matter for a court to make an impartial enquiry into any applicants alleged lack of ‘legal standing’, if or where, any respondent raises the matter as an issue of contention.
[2] Notifications to Norwegian Foreign Press Association (FPA)
The Norwegian Foreign Press Association as well as all their members, which include journalists from Reuters, Agence France Presse (AFP), Associated Press (AP), Al Arabija, Al Jazeera, BBC, Bloomberg, Globe and Mail, Xinhua, Die Welt, Irish Times, Himalayan Times, Itar-Tass, etc., were notified[4] by 13:00 hrs (GM+2) on 07 September 2012 of:
(A) Application for Review of Breivik Judgement filed with Norway Supreme Court;
(B) Complaint filed with Parliamentary Ombudsman against Supreme Court, for slow case processing;
(C) Pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Judge Wenche Arntzen.
[4] http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/no-foreign-press-assoc.html
The Associated Press member to whom the evidence was provided on 07 September is: Nils Myklebost
A request for correction was submitted to Editor in Chief of Edmonton Journal and other publications. Edmonton Journal responded that I should contact you directly.
Any evidentiary documents can be provided at request; but are not included herein attached, since your website states you do not accept attachments.
Text of Email Notice:
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 9:41 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Cc: 'Stephanie Coombs'; 'Chodan, Lucinda (Edm Journal)'
Subject: AP: Correction: 07 Sept: No appeal from Breivik as case formally ends
Associated Press:
Corrections Department
Inaccuracy: Request Correction: Article: "Breivik case formally over as appeals period expires without challenge from far-right guman" (as published in among others Edmonton Journal)
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Breivik+case+formally+over+appeals+period+expires+without+challenge/7205953/story.html
-------
OSLO - Far-right gunman Anders Behring Breivik stuck to his decision not to appeal a terror conviction and prison sentence Friday, formally closing the legal proceedings for Norway's worst peacetime massacre.
Breivik, whose bomb and shooting attacks shocked Norway on July 22 last year, was sentenced two weeks ago to a 21-year prison term that can be extended for as long as the self-described "militant nationalist" is considered a danger to society.
The 33-year-old Norwergian told the court at the time that he wouldn't challenge the ruling and had not changed his mind on Friday, the last day of the appeals period, defence lawyer Geir Lippestad said.
"There is no doubt that the July 22 case is over today," Lippestad told reporters after meeting his client in prison.
Breivik set off a bomb that killed eight people and injured more than 200 in Oslo's government district, before opening fire at the left-leaning Labor Party's annual youth camp, killing 69, most of them teenagers, on Utoya island.
Throughout his trial, he showed no remorse and accused his victims of betraying Norway by embracing a multicultural society.
Many outside observers were bewildered by the court's painstaking efforts to make sure Breivik was treated no differently than any other defendant, even though he didn't even recognize the authority of the court.
Prosecutors politely shook his hand before hearings. On the stand, he was given several opportunities to explain his radical anti-Muslim views.
"All these things that we think are so important to support the rule of law, the rest of the world found odd," Lippestad said. "I am very proud of Norway and the way Norway has resolved this."
------------
The case has not ‘formally ended’.
[1] 27 August Application to Supreme Court for Review of Breivik Judgement.
On 27 August 2012 an application[1] 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.
[1] http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/27-aug-12-review-applic.html
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[2] against Judge Wenche Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Supervisory Committee for Judges (Case 2012-072 ), as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5) and general ECHR public accountability transparency (Lithgow & Others v. United Kingdom) principles.
[2] http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/12-072-judge-wenche-arntzen.html
The Norwegian Supreme Court Registrar initially refused to respond to the Application, or to provide reasons for their refusal. A complaint of Slow Case Processing against the Supreme Court Registrar was submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on 02 September 2012. On 10 September the Secretary General of the Supreme Court: Gunnar Bergby responded[3], by refusing to issue a case number or refer the application to another relevant court, citing alleged lack of locus standi/legal standing.
[3] http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/11-sept-legal-standing.html
On 11 September, the applicant provided a detailed response to Mr. Gunnar Bergby[3], clarifying her legal standing in terms of (I) her applications to the Oslo District Court, which were never officially refused; and still pending resolution with the Supervisory Committee for Judges; (II) her legal standing in terms of her ‘legal interest’ in the matter, in terms of The Dispute Act: Section 29-8: Legal Standing: (2): “A person who is not a party to the action may appeal against rulings that relate to their rights or obligation’. It is a matter for a court to make an impartial enquiry into any applicants alleged lack of ‘legal standing’, if or where, any respondent raises the matter as an issue of contention.
----------
Legal Standing: Legal Interest:
I am an Ecofeminist Political Necessity Activist, who has an interest in ensuring that all political activists from all ideologies, religions, races, cultures who plead to political or military necessity have their ‘necessity’ evidence examined by the court, in terms of an objective and subjective test of such ‘necessity evidence’; the results of such an enquiry being used to make the final determination as to the accused’s guilt or innocence, or mitigation or aggravation of sentencing.
Mr. Breivik’s trial was the most high profile necessity trial on the world stage, for decades. If Mr. Breivik wants to deny himself and other White Nationalists, their right to the court conducting a full impartial enquiry into their necessity evidence, by conducting a subjective and objective test thereof; then that is Mr. Breivik and White Nationalists right to deny themselves an impartial enquiry by the court of their necessity evidence.
The denial by the court, to Mr. Breivik of his right to an objective and subjective test of his necessity evidence, should not be allowed to set a precedent where environmental, immigrant, religious or other necessity activists are also denied their right to an objective and subjective examination of their necessity evidence, just because one white nationalist chooses to become a martyr, with the enthusiastic support of the Oslo District Court and Norwegian Prosecutory authorities.
As detailed in my Notice of Motion ground [A.1.g] (Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Discriminatory Precedent) it is my assertion that the ‘Nodrett/Necessity’ ruling in the Oslo District Court: Breivik judgement as it currently stands discriminates against other future necessity activists, by setting a precedent whereby they can be denied (or can due to ignorance deny themselves, by lacking the knowledge to assert their right thereto); an objective and subjective examination of their necessity evidence.
My application for review is accordingly to demand the right to an effective remedy, to amend this discriminatory necessity ruling in the Oslo District Court’s Breivik judgement, from affecting other necessity activists.
ECHR: ARTICLE 13: Right to an effective remedy
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.
ECHR: ARTICLE 14: Prohibition of discrimination
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
Consequently the Supreme Court Sec. Gen. can refer my application for Review of the Breivik Judgement to either: (A) the Interlocutory Court, in terms of Criminal Procedure Act, Section 377; or (B) the Criminal Cases Review Commision, in terms of Section 389; or (C) an Appeals Court in terms of Section 306 read in conjunction with The Dispute Act: Section 29-8 (2).
What the court cannot do, is to deny me due process access to a court. I cannot find any statutory authority that allows a Secretary General to deny me due process access to a court, to make a judicial finding on legal standing (if or where any respondent so demands) in the official proceedings.
----------
[2] Notifications to Norwegian Foreign Press Association (FPA)
The Norwegian Foreign Press Association as well as all their members, which include journalists from Reuters, Agence France Presse (AFP), Associated Press (AP), Al Arabija, Al Jazeera, BBC, Bloomberg, Globe and Mail, Xinhua, Die Welt, Irish Times, Himalayan Times, Itar-Tass, etc., were notified[4] by 13:00 hrs (GM+2) on 07 September 2012 of:
(A) Application for Review of Breivik Judgement filed with Norway Supreme Court;
(B) Complaint filed with Parliamentary Ombudsman against Supreme Court, for slow case processing;
(C) Pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Judge Wenche Arntzen.
[4] http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/no-foreign-press-assoc.html
The Associated Press member to whom the evidence was provided on 07 September is: Nils Myklebost
A request for correction was submitted to Editor in Chief of Edmonton Journal and other publications. Edmonton Journal responded that I should contact you directly.
Any evidentiary documents can be provided at request; but are not included herein attached, since your website states you do not accept attachments.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lara Johnstone
PO Box 5042
George East, 6539
South Africa
-----Original Message-----
From: Habeus Mentem [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 11:06 AM
To: 'N-FPA'; 'N-FPA: AP: NMyklebost'
Subject: N-FPA: AP: NMyklebost : Norges Høyesterett Application for Review of Breivik Judgement
Foreign Press Assoc. in Norway (FPA)
Nils Myklebost
The Associated Press (US)
Holbergsgate 1, 0166 Oslo
Tel: 22 20 10 30 | Fax: 22 20 52 80
[email protected]
Norway v. Breivik Complaints Censored by Norwegian Media:
[1] Norway Supreme Court / Norges Høyesterett Application 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.
The Norwegian Supreme Court Registrar has so far refused to issue a Case Number for the Application for Review of the Breivik Judgement, or to provide reasons for their refusal. A complaint of Slow Case Processing against the Supreme Court Registrar has been submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman (Annex A)
[2] Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges / Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: Norway v. Breivik Judicial Ethics Violations Complaints
(1) Judge Nina Opsahl: Case #2012-071
(2) Judge Wenche Arntzen: Case #2012-072
(3) Justice Tore Schei: Case #2012-073
Sincerely
Lara Johnstone
PO Box 5042
George East, 6539
Cell: (071) 170 1954