Request for Clarification to Disciplinary Board for Advocates: RE: 'Legal Interest' definition and non-environmental complaints policy.
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:38 PM
Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Complaints filed with Disciplinary Board against Attorneys for Victims Families in Norway v. Breivik matter: 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) : 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; [2] Norway’s endorsement of Political Psychiatry & Psychiatric Fraud; [3] Masculine Insecurity Human Farming for Profit Kaffir Legal Matrix; [4] Norwegian Goverments Endorsement for ANC’s Terrorism & Breeding War; [5] Norwegian Commitment to Rainbow Race Multiculturism is a Fraud (PDF)
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:38 PM
Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Complaints filed with Disciplinary Board against Attorneys for Victims Families in Norway v. Breivik matter: 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) : 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; [2] Norway’s endorsement of Political Psychiatry & Psychiatric Fraud; [3] Masculine Insecurity Human Farming for Profit Kaffir Legal Matrix; [4] Norwegian Goverments Endorsement for ANC’s Terrorism & Breeding War; [5] Norwegian Commitment to Rainbow Race Multiculturism is a Fraud (PDF)
Text of Email Response to Disciplinary Board for Advocates
From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:38 PM
To: 'Disiplinærnemnden for advokater'; 'Judge Ernst Moe'
Subject: Disciplinary Board Head: Judge Ernst Moe: Req for Env. & Health Info ITO S.28 and S.10
Head: Judge Ernst Moe
Sec: Beate Sundstrøm
Disciplinary Committee | Disiplinærnemnden
Kristian Augustsgt. 9 0164 OSLO
Tlf. 22 03 50 50 | Tlf: 22 03 51 08 | Fax 22 11 53 25
Dear Judge Moe,
Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Complaints filed with Disciplinary Board against Attorneys for Victims Families in Norway v. Breivik matter: 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) : 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; [2] Norway’s endorsement of Political Psychiatry & Psychiatric Fraud; [3] Masculine Insecurity Human Farming for Profit Kaffir Legal Matrix; [4] Norwegian Goverments Endorsement for ANC’s Terrorism & Breeding War; [5] Norwegian Commitment to Rainbow Race Multiculturism is a Fraud
Thank you for your email from the Disciplinary Board, dated Tue 6/19/2012 10:26 AM; in response to the 170 complaints I filed against Attorney’s for Defendant (4) and Victims Families (166) in Norway v. Breivik matter. I am awaiting response from the Disciplinary Committee to inform me which Attorney’s are not members of the Bar Association, whose complaints I am required to file with the Disciplinary Board. In the meantime, in response to the issues raised in your Tue 6/19/2012 10:26 AM email, I request the following information:
Request for Information:
[2] The Disciplinary Board’s ‘Legal Interest’ Decision Making Justifications:
[A] Does the Disciplinary Board endorse the European Court of Human Rights (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom ) principle that every individual who files a legal application to a Norwegian Court has a right to a timeous and precise written response informing them whether their application has been accepted, or if denied, reasons for such denial, or to inform the individual of additional information required before the complaint can be accepted?
[B] If so, if or when any Judge refuses to provide any applicant in any court proceeding that any Norwegian Lawyer is a participant in, with such prompt written response, it is the duty of honourable and ethical Lawyers to uphold the respect for impartial court due process proceedings to object to, and expose such discrimatory corrupt practices being practiced by a Norwegian Magistrate or Judge?
[C] In consideration for [A] and [B], could the Disciplinary Board be detailed specific about how and why it alleges that my complaints do not meet the Disciplinary Boards ‘legal interest requirement’?
[D] Is the Disciplinary Board’s ‘Legal Interest’ Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of the Human-Farming-EcoSuicide-Kaffir-Legal-Matrix?: Whether the Disciplinary Board’s decision-making to allege that my complaint did not meet the Disciplinary Board’s ‘legal interest requirement’ had anything to do with silencing, suppressing or obstructing my legal applications to the court in this matter expoing the Human Farming Kaffir Legal Matrix: the Iron Mountain ‘War is a Racket Military Industrial Complex’s centralisation of power and tyranny , founded on Kaffir Law/Legislation which provides citizens with the Inalienable Eco-Suicide ‘Right to Breed’ and ‘Right to Vote’, but demands that Citizens need a Licence to Own a Gun, a Licence to Drive a Car, a Licence to Practice Law, a television licence, a credit licence, a licence to earn a living, a university exemption licence, a licence to fish, a licence to hunt, a liquor licence, a business licence, a marriage licence, a Marxist/Capitalist Traitor Hunting licence, etc, etc.
[D] Is the Disciplinary Board’s ‘Legal Interest’ Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of Norway’s endorsement of the Legal Establishment’s use of ‘Whores of the Court’ Psychiatrists for the purposes of White Supremacy cultural supremacy and social control; ignoring the reality their ‘Whores of the Court’ Bullshit the public and the court with “psychobabble with scientific foundations equal to horoscope charts… the science behind it all is nonexistent”?
[3] The Disciplinary Board’s Environmental Principles Decision-Making
[1] Please provide the Disciplinary Board’s Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for demanding complainants waste paper, ink and non-renewable transporation resources by printing, signing and mailing complaints to the Disciplinary Board’s; and refusing digitally signed complaints submitted by email, which are much more beneficial to the environment, and are exact environmentally digital copies of print versions?
[2] Please provide Disciplinary Board’s Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for printed complaints; when even third world goverments and Bar Associations environmental policies allow courts and organisations to accept email complaints?
[..]
Conclusion:
If an individual files a legal application to a Norwegian Court; does the Disciplinary Board’s support the due process principles; that
1. such an individual has a right to a prompt and clear written response from the Court informing the applicant their legal application has been accepted or if not, whether further information is required or what is required from the individual for such legal application to be accepted;
2. When any legal applicant is denied such due process written response by the court; it is the honourable duty of all legal parties involved in the matter to uphold the respect for due process and the law, by demanding the Judge provide the applicant with a clear and written response to their application.
We live on a finite resource planet and not even Bar Associations have the right to believe that resources are infinite and to demand ‘complaints’ procedures that require complainants to waste scarce resources, when alternative procedures exist that are more environmentally resource friendly.
Please see PDF for full detailed request including footnotes.
Respectfully Submitted
Lara Johnstone
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:38 PM
To: 'Disiplinærnemnden for advokater'; 'Judge Ernst Moe'
Subject: Disciplinary Board Head: Judge Ernst Moe: Req for Env. & Health Info ITO S.28 and S.10
Head: Judge Ernst Moe
Sec: Beate Sundstrøm
Disciplinary Committee | Disiplinærnemnden
Kristian Augustsgt. 9 0164 OSLO
Tlf. 22 03 50 50 | Tlf: 22 03 51 08 | Fax 22 11 53 25
Dear Judge Moe,
Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Complaints filed with Disciplinary Board against Attorneys for Victims Families in Norway v. Breivik matter: 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) : 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; [2] Norway’s endorsement of Political Psychiatry & Psychiatric Fraud; [3] Masculine Insecurity Human Farming for Profit Kaffir Legal Matrix; [4] Norwegian Goverments Endorsement for ANC’s Terrorism & Breeding War; [5] Norwegian Commitment to Rainbow Race Multiculturism is a Fraud
Thank you for your email from the Disciplinary Board, dated Tue 6/19/2012 10:26 AM; in response to the 170 complaints I filed against Attorney’s for Defendant (4) and Victims Families (166) in Norway v. Breivik matter. I am awaiting response from the Disciplinary Committee to inform me which Attorney’s are not members of the Bar Association, whose complaints I am required to file with the Disciplinary Board. In the meantime, in response to the issues raised in your Tue 6/19/2012 10:26 AM email, I request the following information:
Request for Information:
[2] The Disciplinary Board’s ‘Legal Interest’ Decision Making Justifications:
[A] Does the Disciplinary Board endorse the European Court of Human Rights (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom ) principle that every individual who files a legal application to a Norwegian Court has a right to a timeous and precise written response informing them whether their application has been accepted, or if denied, reasons for such denial, or to inform the individual of additional information required before the complaint can be accepted?
[B] If so, if or when any Judge refuses to provide any applicant in any court proceeding that any Norwegian Lawyer is a participant in, with such prompt written response, it is the duty of honourable and ethical Lawyers to uphold the respect for impartial court due process proceedings to object to, and expose such discrimatory corrupt practices being practiced by a Norwegian Magistrate or Judge?
[C] In consideration for [A] and [B], could the Disciplinary Board be detailed specific about how and why it alleges that my complaints do not meet the Disciplinary Boards ‘legal interest requirement’?
[D] Is the Disciplinary Board’s ‘Legal Interest’ Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of the Human-Farming-EcoSuicide-Kaffir-Legal-Matrix?: Whether the Disciplinary Board’s decision-making to allege that my complaint did not meet the Disciplinary Board’s ‘legal interest requirement’ had anything to do with silencing, suppressing or obstructing my legal applications to the court in this matter expoing the Human Farming Kaffir Legal Matrix: the Iron Mountain ‘War is a Racket Military Industrial Complex’s centralisation of power and tyranny , founded on Kaffir Law/Legislation which provides citizens with the Inalienable Eco-Suicide ‘Right to Breed’ and ‘Right to Vote’, but demands that Citizens need a Licence to Own a Gun, a Licence to Drive a Car, a Licence to Practice Law, a television licence, a credit licence, a licence to earn a living, a university exemption licence, a licence to fish, a licence to hunt, a liquor licence, a business licence, a marriage licence, a Marxist/Capitalist Traitor Hunting licence, etc, etc.
[D] Is the Disciplinary Board’s ‘Legal Interest’ Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of Norway’s endorsement of the Legal Establishment’s use of ‘Whores of the Court’ Psychiatrists for the purposes of White Supremacy cultural supremacy and social control; ignoring the reality their ‘Whores of the Court’ Bullshit the public and the court with “psychobabble with scientific foundations equal to horoscope charts… the science behind it all is nonexistent”?
[3] The Disciplinary Board’s Environmental Principles Decision-Making
[1] Please provide the Disciplinary Board’s Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for demanding complainants waste paper, ink and non-renewable transporation resources by printing, signing and mailing complaints to the Disciplinary Board’s; and refusing digitally signed complaints submitted by email, which are much more beneficial to the environment, and are exact environmentally digital copies of print versions?
[2] Please provide Disciplinary Board’s Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for printed complaints; when even third world goverments and Bar Associations environmental policies allow courts and organisations to accept email complaints?
[..]
Conclusion:
If an individual files a legal application to a Norwegian Court; does the Disciplinary Board’s support the due process principles; that
1. such an individual has a right to a prompt and clear written response from the Court informing the applicant their legal application has been accepted or if not, whether further information is required or what is required from the individual for such legal application to be accepted;
2. When any legal applicant is denied such due process written response by the court; it is the honourable duty of all legal parties involved in the matter to uphold the respect for due process and the law, by demanding the Judge provide the applicant with a clear and written response to their application.
We live on a finite resource planet and not even Bar Associations have the right to believe that resources are infinite and to demand ‘complaints’ procedures that require complainants to waste scarce resources, when alternative procedures exist that are more environmentally resource friendly.
Please see PDF for full detailed request including footnotes.
Respectfully Submitted
Lara Johnstone
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/
RSS Feed
