(1) Request Clarification: RE: Habeus Mentem, Amicus Curiae and Review Applications Filed: (2) Request Clarification: What were your instructions to your attorney’s regarding ‘Guilt/Innocence: Necessity’
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 10:49 PM
Subject: RE: Mr. Geir Lippestad: FYR: Copy of Req for Clarity sent to Mr. Breivik
Text: Email Transcript:
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 10:49 PM
To: Crt: Lippestad: Geir Lippestad (**@advokatlippestad.no); Crt: Lippestad: Office (**@advokatlippestad.no)
Cc: Crt: Lippestad: Tord Jordet (**@advokatlippestad.no); Crt: Lippestad: Odd Ivar Grøn (**@advokatlippestad.no); Crt: Lippestad: Vibeke Hein Bæra (**@advokatlippestad.no)
Subject: RE: Mr. Geir Lippestad: FYR: Copy of Req for Clarity sent to Mr. Breivik
Please take notice of correspondence sent to Mr. Breivik, honourable transparency, copied to your offices, in reference to:
------------
Request Clarification: RE: Habeus Mentem, Amicus Curiae and Review Applications Filed:
I am not quite clear. You acknowledge receipt of the legal applications I filed in the Norway v. Breivik matter, but refer to them as ‘my letter and email compaigns’? Do you dispute their contents as being unworthy of being considered legal applications; and if so, could you clarify how and why you do so? Or why do you refer to these legal applications as ‘letters and emails’.
In terms of my definition of ‘honour’; to be ‘honourable’ is to legally acknowledge the application by responding to the issues raised therein, as part of court procedure.
If you do not dispute them as legal applications: Could you please clarify what exactly your instructions were to your Attorneys in response to the applications I filed in Oslo District Court: Judge Nina Opsahl (Habeus Mentem: Right to Legal Sanity) and Judge Wenche (Amicus Curiae: Friend of the Court) and the Norwegian Supreme Court: Review and Declaratory Order.
Request Clarification: What were your instructions to your attorney’s regarding ‘Guilt/Innocence: Necessity’
Mr. Lippestad stated in court proceedings that your claim of innocence and necessity was purely a formality: i.e. my interpretation: you did not subjectively believe your claims of necessity; its all just propaganda bullshit.
Your testimony, on the other hand, repeatedly focussed on your claim of necessity as the source for your innocence.
So, I am confused: If you sincerely believe your claims of innocence and necessity:
* At the very least: Why have you not instructed Mr. Lippestad to retract his statements that contradict yours?
* If he refuses: Why have you not publicly stated your lawyers refusal to follow your instructions and placed the dispute transparently before the court, as a matter of court record?
* Or, is Lippestad telling the truth; and you really don’t subjectively believe in your necessity claim towards innocence, you are simply engaging in a bullshit the public relations propaganda?
See Annex F: Letter to Mr. Lippestad: Request for Clarification regarding Defence Counsel’s focus on ‘sane/safety’ issue, while seemingly ignoring the ‘innocence/guilt’ issue, thereby denying Breivik’s right to Impartial trial to enquire into the evidence for and against his Necessity Defence.
----------------
All correspondence to, and from, Mr. Breivik is publicly available for reading, and download, at:
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/breivik-letters.html
Respectfully,
Lara Johnstone