Application to Environment Appeals Board: for an Order that the Disciplinary Board and Committee: Provide their Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for demanding complainants waste paper, ink and non-renewable transporation resources by printing, signing and mailing complaints to them; 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? CCBE Code of Ethics Disciplinary Complaints were filed against 170 Advocates in the Norway v. Breivik matter (4 with Disciplinary Board of Advocates (“Disciplinary Board” (PDF); 166 with Bar Association: Disciplinary Committee (“Disciplinary Committee” (PDF)), by email. Both the Disciplinary Board and Committee responded that according to their complaints policy; they refuse to accept complaints submitted by email; all complaints must be submitted in hardcopy (printed and sent by landmail). Repeated requests to both respondents to provide their environmental justifications for their policy to refuse email complaints were refused. Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 1:25 AM Subject: Env. App. Brd.: Req for Env. Info ITO S28 Complaints: (1) Bar Association Disc. Comm; (2) Disc. Brd for Advocates |
Transcript of Email:
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 1:25 AM
To: 'Environmental Appeals Board'
Cc: 'Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints'; 'IJ Hammer:'; 'Disciplinary Committee:'; 'Judge Ernst Moe'
Subject: Env. App. Brd.: Req for Env. Info ITO S28 Complaints: (1) Bar Association Disc. Comm; (2) Disc. Brd for Advocates
Environmental Appeals Board:
Appeals of environmental information
c/o Secretariat, Climate and Pollution
PO Box 8100 Dep, 0032 OSLO,
Respondents:
(1) Chairperson: Berit Reiss-Andersen
Sec./Exec. Officer: Inger-Johanna Hammer
Disciplinary Committee
The Norwegian Bar Association
(2) Head: Judge Ernst Moe
Disciplinary Board for Advocates
Environmental Appeals Board,
Request for Access to Environment Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Norwegian Bar Association’s Anti-Environmental Printed Complaints Policy
CCBE Code of Ethics Disciplinary Complaints were filed against 170 Advocates in the Norway v. Breivik matter (4 with Disciplinary Board of Advocates (“Disciplinary Board”; 166 with Bar Association: Disciplinary Committee (“Disciplinary Committee”), by email.
Both the Disciplinary Board and Committee responded that according to their complaints policy; they refuse to accept complaints submitted by email; all complaints must be submitted in hardcopy (printed and sent by landmail).
Repeated requests to both respondents to provide their environmental justifications for their policy to refuse email complaints were refused.
Relief Requested:
An Order that the Disciplinary Board and Committee:
1. Provide their Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for demanding complainants waste paper, ink and non-renewable transporation resources by printing, signing and mailing complaints to them; 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?
Full complaints in attached PDF's.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Johnstone
Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com
Lara (Clann/Tribe Name: Johnstone)
I (Sovereign or alleged Corporate identity) do not endorse any contract which does not fulfill the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract, namely: (1) Full Disclosure; (2) Equal Consideration; (3) Lawful Clear and Concise Terms and Conditions simply explained; and (4) Signatures of both/all Parties (In accordance to Common Law, I also consider corporations to be without legal standing, as they have no mind, body, legs, eyes, emotions; and hence are legal fictions). All my correspondence is public and a matter of record. If you wish to conduct private correspondence with me: File a written request, including your evidence and reasons, and only if your evidence is of sufficient weight, shall I be willing to enter into an agreement with you to keep your correspondence 'private' (i.e. secret). As a member of Radical Honesty culture I always endorse the resolution of all disagreements and/or misunderstandings in accordance to Radical Honesty cultural practices (See: Practicing Radical Honesty, by Brad Blanton & Concourt CCT 23-10 order by Justices on 03 May 2010: "The Chief Justice has issued the following directions: Ms. Lara Johnstone, Member of the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion is admitted as an Amicus Curiae."), or via independent arbitration that does not involve bloodsucking parasite lawyers; and am willing to consider the practices of other cultures, who seriously and sincerely consider mine.