Request Review Orders for:
[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.
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 1:52 AM
Subject: 22 Juli Victims Families, via Lawyers: Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement
Text of Email Notice:
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 1:52 AM
To: 'Kristin Barth-Larsen'; 'Kristin Morch'; 'Kristine Lykke'; 'Lars Engdahl'; 'Lilli Marie Brimi'; 'Linda Solberg Børsand'
Cc: 'Linn Kristin Evju'; 'Maria Bergram Aas'; 'Marie Helene Earl Haugland'; 'Marte Randen'; 'Martin Eiebakke'; 'Mette Ekroll Nyland'
Subject: 22 Juli Victims Families, via Lawyers: Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement
Norway Supreme Court Application of: LARA JOHNSTONE: Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement delivered on 24 August 2012:
Respondents:
First: OSLO DISTRICT COURT
Second: KINGDOM OF NORWAY (Prosecution)
Third: ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK
Fourth: VICTIMS FAMILIES
==============
{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:
Respectfully Submitted,
LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se
PO Box 4052, George, 6539
Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239
Email: **@mweb.co.za
* Notice of Motion
* Founding Affidavit (Enclosures)
[A] 03 May 2012: Concourt Ruling: Lara Johnstone: Member of Radical Honesty culture
[B] Cullinan, Cormac: Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice (Summary)
[C] Clugston, Chris: Sustainability Defined
[D] 13 Aug 2012: Letter to Mr. Anders Breivik
NoM, Founding Affidavit & Enclosures available at:
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/nom--affidavit.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 2:24 PM
To: Crt: Victims: Siv Hallgren ([email protected]); Crt: Victims: Frode Elgesem ([email protected]); Crt: Victims: Mette Yvonne Larsen ([email protected])
Subject: 22 Juli Victims Families, via Lawyers: Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement
Norway Supreme Court Application of: LARA JOHNSTONE: Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement delivered on 24 August 2012:
Respondents:
First: OSLO DISTRICT COURT
Second: KINGDOM OF NORWAY (Prosecution)
Third: ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK
Fourth: VICTIMS FAMILIES
Please find attached the following PDF's:
* Notice of Motion
* Founding Affidavit
(Enclosures)
[A] 03 May 2012: Concourt Ruling: Lara Johnstone: Member of Radical Honesty culture
[B] Cullinan, Cormac: Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice (Summary)
[C] Clugston, Chris: Sustainability Defined
[D] 13 Aug 2012: Letter to Mr. Anders Breivik
==============
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:
Please find attached the following PDF's:
* Notice of Motion
* Founding Affidavit (Enclosures)
[A] 03 May 2012: Concourt Ruling: Lara Johnstone: Member of Radical Honesty culture
[B] Cullinan, Cormac: Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice (Summary)
[C] Clugston, Chris: Sustainability Defined
[D] 13 Aug 2012: Letter to Mr. Anders Breivik
LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se
PO Box 4052, George, 6539
Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239
Email: **@mweb.co.za