I have filed an application for Review of the Anders Breivik Oslo District Court Judgement, with the Norway Supreme Court, that involves Wild Law related issues. This is simply a transparency notice to inform you of the application, should you wish to provide any feedback or simply wish to be aware of it, to monitor it, or whatever. Please feel free to provide any feedback, advise, criticism.
The Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist Wild Law essence of my argument is based upon the work of Chris Clugston (Scarcity), that the Judgement - like most Patriarchal Anthropocentric legalism - is about polarisation and parasitisim, not about problem solving, which requires confronting the ecological and psychological integrity root causes of the dispute.
Secondly, the 'necessity defence' argument is also indirectly related to my environmental activism focus. If the court denies Breivik the required objective and subjective test, that is required for any defendant who pleads to necessity... then some day when some Pentti Linkolian eco-warrior goes out and commits some eco-necessity criminal act... then the Breivik precedent can be used to deny that eco-warrior a fair trial, by denying them their right that their eco-warrior evidence be impartially examined by the court, both objectively and subjectively.
My application for review requests the court to set aside the 'necessity judgement' and consequently the 'guilt finding' and to remit the case back to the Oslo Court for the hearing of further evidence in accordance with the requirements of the necessity defence, to examine Breivik's evidence both objectively and subjectively.
Brief Excerpts (Link below has full Notice of Motion and Affidavit)
Text of Online Email Notice:
Dear Wild Law / Rights of Nature Activists,
I have filed an application for Review of the Anders Breivik Oslo District Court Judgement, with the Norway Supreme Court, that involves Wild Law related issues. This is simply a transparency notice to inform you of the application, should you wish to provide any feedback or simply wish to be aware of it, to monitor it, or whatever. Please feel free to provide any feedback, advise, criticism.
The Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist Wild Law essence of my argument is based upon the work of Chris Clugston (Scarcity), that the Judgement - like most Patriarchal Anthropocentric legalism - is about polarisation and parasitisim, not about problem solving, which requires confronting the ecological and psychological integrity root causes of the dispute.
Secondly, the 'necessity defence' argument is also indirectly related to my environmental activism focus. If the court denies Breivik the required objective and subjective test, that is required for any defendant who pleads to necessity... then some day when some Pentti Linkolian eco-warrior goes out and commits some eco-necessity criminal act... then the Breivik precedent can be used to deny that eco-warrior a fair trial, by denying them their right that their eco-warrior evidence be impartially examined by the court, both objectively and subjectively.
My application for review requests the court to set aside the 'necessity judgement' and consequently the 'guilt finding' and to remit the case back to the Oslo Court for the hearing of further evidence in accordance with the requirements of the necessity defence, to examine Breivik's evidence both objectively and subjectively.
Brief Excerpts (Link below has full Notice of Motion and Affidavit)
Necessity Judgements ‘Extreme Political Objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test; and is a Left vs. Right Wing Blame Game Parasite Leeching Polarization – not a Matriarchal Ecological and Psychological Integrity Root Cause Problem Solving – conclusion.
A Matriarchal Radical Problem Solving Accountability Enquiry would have examined both the underlying ecological reality environment, and the underlying psychological integrity environment of the dispute between the defendant and the victims.
A healthy ecological environment, with due regard for carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights; similarly a psychological integrity environment of philosophical radical transparency courageous truth searching radical honesty relationships that inforlve sincere forgiveness is a sine qua non for healthy, transparent relationships that result in the co-creation of a code of conduct that enables non-violent honest sincere resolutions to disagreements.
[..] From a broader ecological perspective, all human economics and politics are irrelevant.
Myth: Through enlightened economic and political policies and initiatives at the national and global levels, we will overcome all obstacles to global industrialism and enable a continuously improving industrialized lifestyle for our ever-increasing global population.
Reality: Unfortunately, the fundamental cause underlying our predicament is ecological—ever increasing NNR scarcity—it is not economic or political. The economic and political issues that we address and attempt to resolve are merely manifestations of our predicament—they are symptoms, not the disease.
Since none of the economic and political expedients that we employ to solve these problems can create additional NNRs—which are the primary enablers of our industrialized way of life—our economic and political “solutions” are irrelevant.
In fact, from the broader ecological perspective, all human economics and politics are irrelevant.
Because the underlying cause associated with our transition from prosperity to austerity is ecological (geological), not economic or political, our incessant barrage of economic and political “fixes” – fiscal and monetary “stimulus” – is misguided and inconsequential. Our national economies are not “broken”; they are “dying of slow starvation” for lack of sufficient economically viable NNR inputs.
• Our industrial lifestyle paradigm, which is enabled by enormous quantities of finite, nonreplenishing, and increasingly scarce NNRs, is unsustainable – actually, physically impossible – going forward.
• Global humanity’s steadily deteriorating condition will culminate in self-inflicted global societal collapse, almost certainly by the year 2050. We will not accept gracefully our new normal of ever-increasing, geologically-imposed austerity; nor will we suffer voluntarily the horrifically painful population level reductions and material living standard degradation associated with our inevitable transition to a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm.
- Scarcity is a comprehensive, multidisciplinary assessment of the realities, choices, and likely outcomes associated with ever-increasing nonrenewable natural resource (NNR) scarcity. NNRs are the fossil fuels, metals, and nonmetallic minerals that enable our industrialized existence. Scarcity is also the story of a species, Homo sapiens, whose superior intellect should have caused it to eschew natural resource utilization behavior through which lower order species often experience population “irruptions” followed by “die-offs”. No such luck… Scarcity will enable you to make sense of a world that is experiencing the most profound paradigm shift in human history.
From Affidavit:
Sustainable Democracy Wild Law requires at minimum a ‘Carrying Capacity Footprint’ Licence to Vote, and until a national carrying capacity footprint is achieved, either a licence to Breed recognizing Judge Jason Brent’s acknowledgement of the penis and womb as the most potent weapons of war and the ecologically irresponsible use of our penis and wombs to be considered as acts of war ; or adoption of Judge Jason Brent’s anti-war one child per two adults only policy: Humans: An Endangered Species: Shocking Proposal: “limit the right of any male to father only one live child and limit the right of every woman to one live birth. [..] Since survival of our species depends on the one child rule, under my proposal any attempt to evade the rule would result in death of the evader and of any second child. The rule to be fair must be absolute, without a single exception. [..] Population would continue to be reduced pursuant to the method [..] until it reached 300 million [or a number] based on the ability of the earth to provide resources for humanity to maintain an acceptable standard of living for a minimum of 25,000 years.” [Annex C: Sustainability Defined]
Green Carrying Capacity Footprint Licence to Vote: A sustainable democracy or republic only allows citizens who live below the nations carrying capacity in terms of procreation and consumption, the licence to vote. Any citizen whose consumption and/or procreation footprint is above the nations carrying capacity footprint is effectively robbing future generations of the nations resources that should be conserved and preserved for their future. We don’t give robbers the code to the nations bank safes; so why do we give citizen ecological rapists and robbers a licence to vote and bribe politicians to rob future generations resources?
Green Carrying Capacity Footprint Licence to Legal Ethical and Psycho-Integrity Legal Credibility: Citizens whose carrying capacity lifestyle is green in terms of procreation and consumption, i.e. who would or should be granted the licence to vote have higher legal ethical and psycho-integrity credibility in a court of law, or in any political or economic dispute, considering that they practice what they preach in terms of living a lifestyle that does not contribute to ecological degradation, resource depletion, overpopulation and local, national or international resource wars.
More info: http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/nom--affidavit.html
EcoRights Regards,
Lara Johnstone