Correspondence to Supreme Court Registrar: Subject: [31.08] RE: Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Req. Case Number for Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement
Norway Supreme Court Registrar
I am still waiting for a case number for my application for review. Could you kindly provide such case number or clarify reasons for your failure to do so.
Respondents: First: OSLO DISTRICT COURT; Second: KINGDOM OF NORWAY (Prosecution); Third: ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK; Fourth: VICTIMS FAMILIES
On 27 August 2012 an application was filed with the Norwegian Supreme Court for Review of the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement, to set aside (A) the Necessity ruling, and (B) the conviction; and remit to the Oslo District Court for the hearing of further evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. The finding of guilt, in the absence of full Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Conclusions renders the Guilt Finding Inadequate.
Norway Supreme Court Registrar
I am still waiting for a case number for my application for review. Could you kindly provide such case number or clarify reasons for your failure to do so.
Respondents: First: OSLO DISTRICT COURT; Second: KINGDOM OF NORWAY (Prosecution); Third: ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK; Fourth: VICTIMS FAMILIES
On 27 August 2012 an application was filed with the Norwegian Supreme Court for Review of the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement, to set aside (A) the Necessity ruling, and (B) the conviction; and remit to the Oslo District Court for the hearing of further evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. The finding of guilt, in the absence of full Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Conclusions renders the Guilt Finding Inadequate.
Email to Supreme Court Registrar:
From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 2:43 PM
To: Crt: SupremeCrt: Chief Justice Tore Schei; HRET: postmottak
Cc: Helga Mærde Gruer; Kjersti Ruud ; svein.tore.andersen@hoyesterett.no; Dep.Sec.Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard; Ch.Justice Tore Schei; Crt: Lippestad: Tord Jordet; Crt: Victims: Siv Hallgren; Crt: Victims: Frode Elgesem; Crt: Victims: Mette Yvonne Larsen; Crt: Pros Holden. MJus: Grete Faremo; Crt: Pros Holden. Politie: Org.Crime
Subject: [31.08] RE: Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Req. Case Number for Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement
Norway Supreme Court Registrar
I am still waiting for a case number for my application for review. Could you kindly provide such case number or clarify reasons for your failure to do so.
Respondents:
First: OSLO DISTRICT COURT
Second: KINGDOM OF NORWAY (Prosecution)
Third: ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK
Fourth: VICTIMS FAMILIES
Application 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.
Respectfully,
LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se
PO Box 4052, George, 6539
Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 2:43 PM
To: Crt: SupremeCrt: Chief Justice Tore Schei; HRET: postmottak
Cc: Helga Mærde Gruer; Kjersti Ruud ; svein.tore.andersen@hoyesterett.no; Dep.Sec.Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard; Ch.Justice Tore Schei; Crt: Lippestad: Tord Jordet; Crt: Victims: Siv Hallgren; Crt: Victims: Frode Elgesem; Crt: Victims: Mette Yvonne Larsen; Crt: Pros Holden. MJus: Grete Faremo; Crt: Pros Holden. Politie: Org.Crime
Subject: [31.08] RE: Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Req. Case Number for Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement
Norway Supreme Court Registrar
I am still waiting for a case number for my application for review. Could you kindly provide such case number or clarify reasons for your failure to do so.
Respondents:
First: OSLO DISTRICT COURT
Second: KINGDOM OF NORWAY (Prosecution)
Third: ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK
Fourth: VICTIMS FAMILIES
Application 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.
Respectfully,
LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se
PO Box 4052, George, 6539
Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239
RSS Feed
