Letter (PDF) to Globe and Mail Public Editor: Ms. Sylvia Stead and Prof.  Appelbaum: RE: Paul Appelbaum: Never label political crimes, like Breivik’s, acts of insanity.

For Your Information: 

[A] Inaccuracy of Mr. Breivik’s ‘conviction’: Breivik’s Conviction has been appealed by means of review. 

On 27 August 2012 an application (PDF) 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; 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. 

Correspondence (PDF) to Christian Science Monitor Editor and Ms. Valeria Criscione: RE: Valeria Criscione: No clear winners in trial of Anders Behring Breivik.

For Your Information: Censored by Norwegian Media:

[1] Norway’s 28 Aug 2012 Press Complaints Commission (PFU) decision authorizes Norwegian Media to deceive the public, if the target of the deception consents to it. [PFU: Lara Johnstone vs. News with Views in Norway]

[2] The ‘Rule of Law’ in Norway: Pending Norway v. Breivik Judicial Ethics and Attorney Ethics Complaints

[3] Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik’s ‘conviction’: Breivik’s Conviction has been appealed to Supreme Court by means of application for review. 

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; 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.  

[D] Possible Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik’s Motivation: Islamification of Europe Problem Solving, or Bullshit the Public Self Promotion Parasite Leeching?

Correspondence to Mr. Chris Cork: Re: PK.News: The Breivik Verdict

For Your Information:

Breivik’s Conviction has been appealed by means of review. 

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; 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.  

Copy of the Notice of Motion and Founding Affidavit are available at
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/nom--affidavit.html 

Letter (PDF) to  Chicago Sun Times Managing Editor: Craig Newman; Features Editor: Linda Bergstrom; News Editor: Zach Finken and Reason Editor: Jacob Sullum: RE: Jacob Sullum’s Article: Breivik ruling a victory for the rule of law.

[1] Norway’s Press Complaints Commission authorizes Norwegian Media to deceive the public, if the target of the deception consents to it. [PFU: Lara Johnstone vs. News with Views in Norway]

[2] The ‘Rule of Law’ in Norway: Norway v. Breivik: 3 Judicial Ethics and 170 Attorney Ethics Complaints Pending.

[3] Inaccuracy of Mr. Breivik’s ‘conviction’: Breivik’s Conviction has been appealed by means of review. 

Correspondence to Press Complaints Commission Secretary: Mr. Kjell Nyhuus: Request for Decision of 28 Aug meeting, and subsequent thereto, for written reasons for the decision. Instead of written reasons, Mr. Nyhuus just provided the Commission Statutes, ignoring the request for written reasons.

"I did not ask for the Statutes of the Commission. 

I asked for the written reasons in terms of the Comissions ruling/judgement response to my presentation to the Committee that: 

>>Special circumstances of journalistic/editorial ethics warrant that the complaint be treated without Breivik's consent.

Factual legal findings of guilt, cannot be made by an accused, their lawyer, or any journalist, or editor; only an impartial court of law; and any reporter/editor who reports an accused to have been found guilty -irrespective if the accused pled guilty or not - is MISSTATING LEGAL FACTS.<<

Could you kindly ask the Committee to provide WRITTEN REASONS -- namely how and why they argue that an editor or a journalist can publish LIES -- make findings of guilt about an accused who has not been found guilty by a court of law; as long as the accused consents to such deception of the public? "

Sendt: 29. august 2012 13:17
RE: PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago' 

Complaint submitted to Press Complaints Commission against The Guardian: Sindre Bangstad: Article: After Anders Breivik's conviction, Norway must confront Islamophobia (PDF).

This complaint refers to a violation of Editors Code. 1. Accuracy, and relates to the following statements made by Mr. Bangstad in his article: After Anders Breivik's conviction, Norway must confront Islamophobia[1]: 

[1] Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik’s ‘conviction’: Conviction has been appealed by means of review. 

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; 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.  

[B] Possible Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik’s inspiration being the ‘far right’  

[C] White Guilt Liberal Bigotry to Muslims Implying they are incapable of hearing criticism: challenging alleged ‘negative attitudes’. 

Correspondence to Pentti Linkola, via: Natural Heritage Foundation | Luonnonperintösäätiö: Re: Pentti Linkolian Wild Law Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review of Breivik Judgement (PDF) 

I have filed an application for Review of the Anders Breivik Oslo District Court Judgement, with the Norway Supreme Court, that involves Anti-Civilisation Licence-to-Breed Population Reduction Wild Law related issues. This is simply a transparency notice to inform you of the application, should you wish to provide any feedback (recommend Scandinavian ecological lawyers?), get involved, or otherwise. 

The application has three aspects that are Wild Law or Ecologically Focussed:

[1] Courts Breivik Judgement is a Left vs. Right Wing Blame Game Judgement, not an Ecological Root Cause Problem Solving Judgement:

[2] Denying Breivik his ‘Necessity’ Defence Right to an Objective and Subjective Test of his Evidence sets horrific Precedent for Denying other Activists, including EcoWarrior Necessity Activists their Necessity Test Rights:

[3] Judgement’s Transparency Failure violates Aarhus Environment Transparency Convention principles and public accountability impartiality principles.

Correspondences to 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)

Correspondence to Minister of Justice: Grete Faremo

Ms. Faremo, 

Could you please ask Prosecutors Holden and Engh to confirm receipt of the 27 August 2012 Application for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement delivered on 24 August 2012; submitted to them via your office? 

Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:53 AM
Subject: Min. Justice: G. Faremo: RE: Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement: Confirm receipt by Pros. Holden & Engh, via. Min.Justice & Politie: 

Notice of Norway Supreme Court Application for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement delivered on 24 August 2012 sent to 170 Victims Families Attorneys

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