Could you please provide me with a case number for my application for review; or inform me by when you will issue a case number?
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:41 AM
Subject: Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Req. Case Number for Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement
Text of Email Request:
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:41 AM
To: Crt: SupremeCrt: Chief Justice Tore Schei (**@domstoladministrasjonen.no); HRET: postmottak (**@hoyesterett.no)
Cc: Helga Mærde Gruer (**@hoyesterett.no); Kjersti Ruud (**@hoyesterett.no) ; Svein Tore Andersen (**@hoyesterett.no) ; Dep.Sec.Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard (**@hoyesterett.no); Ch.Justice Tore Schei (**@hoyesterett.no)
Subject: Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Req. Case Number for Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement
Norway Supreme Court Registrar
Could you please provide me with a case number for my application for review; or inform me by when you will issue a case number?
Respectfully,
Respectfully Submitted,
LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se
PO Box 4052, George, 6539
Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239
Email: **@mweb.co.za
-----Original Message-----
From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 3:10 PM
To: Crt: SupremeCrt: Chief Justice Tore Schei (**@domstoladministrasjonen.no); HRET: postmottak (**@hoyesterett.no)
Cc: Helga Mærde Gruer (**@hoyesterett.no); Kjersti Ruud (**@hoyesterett.no) ; Svein Tore Andersen (**@hoyesterett.no) ; Dep.Sec.Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard (**@hoyesterett.no); Ch.Justice Tore Schei ([email protected])
Subject: Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement
TO: Norway Supreme Court Registrar
Respondents:
First: OSLO DISTRICT COURT
Second: KINGDOM OF NORWAY (Prosecution)
Third: ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK
Fourth: VICTIMS FAMILIES
Please find attached the following for filing in this matter:
* Notice of Motion: Application for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement
- Encl: Lovdata: 2012-08-24: Tingret Oslo: 2011-188627-24 Judgement
* Founding Affidavit of Lara Johnstone
- Annex A: 03 May 2012: Concourt Ruling: Lara Johnstone: Radical Honesty culture
- Annex B: Cullinan, Cormac: Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice (Summary)
- Annex C: Clugston, Chris: Sustainability Defined
- Annex D: 13 Aug 2012: Letter to Mr. Anders Breivik
* PROOF OF SERVICE Affidavit of Lara Johnstone
Dated at George, Southern Cape, South Africa, on 27TH of AUGUST 2012.
Respectfully Submitted,
LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se
PO Box 4052, George, 6539
Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239
Email: **@mweb.co.za
==============
Excerpts from Notice of Motion.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the applicant intends to apply for leave to review against parts of the judgement by Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Fagdommer: Arne Lyng; Meddommere: Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff, delivered on 24 August 2012 (herein after referred to as the “Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement”).
{I} REVIEW ORDERS REQUESTED:
The following ‘Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement’ decisions are reviewed:
[A.1] Set Aside the Judgements ‘Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling’ (pg.67):
[A.2] Set Aside Defendant’s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry.
[A.3] If Defendant refuses to cooperate with Further Evidence proceedings; an order to change his plea to ‘guilty’; and/or ‘Non-Precedent’ Setting Declaratory Order
[A.4] If Failure of Justice Irregularity Does not Influence Conviction and/or Sentence Verdict; a ‘Non-Precedent Setting’ Declaratory Order
[B] Set Aside the Judgements Failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges, as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5) principles, and general ECHR public accountability Transparency (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom) principles.
[C] The respondents who oppose this application are ordered jointly and severally to pay their own costs in terms of this application.
{II} GROUNDS FOR REVIEW:
The application for review is based on the grounds of (A) Irregularities & Illegalities in the Proceedings before the Oslo District Court: in terms of (1) A Failure of Justice and Failure of a True and Correct Interpretation of the Facts; (2) Judicially Un-Investigated Facts; (3) Failure of Application of Mind and (4) Rejection of Admissible or Competent Evidence: (i) Prosecutor & Judges failure to examine objective and subjective necessity test; and (ii) Courts denial of due process to applicants Habeus Mentem and Amicus Curiae applications.
[A.1.a] Necessity Judgement fails to provide any necessity criminal provisions that prohibit killing of Government Officials in case of Necessity.
[A.1.b] Necessity Judgement Ignores that Criminal Necessity provisions do not prohibit the killing of Government Officials in case of objective and subjective Necessity.
[A.1.c] Necessity Judgement’s Erroneous interpretation of Necessity related criminal law provisions and international necessity related human rights law.
[A.1.d] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Failure to conduct required Objective and Subjective Tests for Defendant’s Necessity Defence:
[A.1.e] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Inadequate
[A.1.f] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Clarification Upon which party the Onus of Proof lies in a Case of Necessity; and how or why their evidence was insufficient renders the Judgements Conclusions inadequate.
[A.1.g] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Discriminatory Precedent
[A.1.h] Necessity Judgements ‘Extreme Political Objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test
[A.1.i] Necessity Judgements ‘Extreme Political Objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test; and is a Patriarchal Left vs. Right Wing Blame Game Parasite Leeching Polarization – not a Matriarchal Ecological and Psychological Integrity Root Cause Problem Solving – conclusion.
[B] Judgement’s Transparency Failure violates Aarhus Convention principles and public accountability impartiality principles.
-----------------
Table of Contents of Founding Affidavit:
* Review: “Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement”
* Legal Interest: Judicially Un-Investigated Facts
* Legal Questions: Matriarchal Ecological Wild Law Legal Principles Worldview
* The Parties:
* Failure of Justice: Judicially UnInvestigated Facts: Necessity and Guilt:
* Oslo Court: Breivik Defence of Necessity:
* Prosecutor Engh and Holden ‘Refuse to touch Breivik’s Principle of Necessity’:
* Necessity in Norwegian Law:
* Norwegian Necessity Judgement: Subjective and Objective Test:
* Necessity Defence: International and Foreign Law:
* Common Law Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing:
* Civil Disobedience Political Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing:
* Military Necessity and International Humanitarian Law:
* Military Necessity: use of Nuclear Weapons for Self-Preservation:
* Military Necessity in Nuremberg German High Command Trial:
* Military Necessity: The Rendulic Rule: Importance of the Subjective Test:
* Military Necessity: Rendulic Rule: Subjective Honesty in current Military Doctrine:
* Onus of Proof: Norwegian State or Breivik to Prove Necessity?
* Transparency Disclosure: Correspondence to Mr. Breivik and Mr. Geir Lippestad:
* Environmental Transparency: Aarhus Environment Info Transparency Convention
* ECHR: Lithgow on Transparency: Precise and Accessible Legislation:
* The interests of justice: Multicultural Matriarchy vs. Monocultural Patriarchy?
* Multi-cultural Law Must (a) avoid Mono-cultural legal Hegemony, (b) draw on legal cultural diversity: