10 April: ECHR Head of Division: Soren Prebensen writes (PDF) that Polish Judge Krystof Wojtyczek sitting between 20 March and 03 April, decided to declare the application inadmissible; without providing any written reasons whatsoever for his 'inadmissible' decision whatsoever. The decision is final and not subject to appeal. The file will be destroyed one year after the single judge's decision.
Update:
10 April: ECHR Head of Division: Soren Prebensen writes (PDF) that Polish Judge Krystof Wojtyczek sitting between 20 March and 03 April, decided to declare the application inadmissible; without providing any written reasons whatsoever for his 'inadmissible' decision whatsoever. The decision is final and not subject to appeal. The file will be destroyed one year after the single judge's decision.
0 Comments
JAG EOPGASM Notice to Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee Secretariat: Ms. Smagadi, Aarhus Convention Committee Members; and Media, Bar Association & Breivik parties: RE: Aarhus CCC (ref. ACCC/C/2013/82) ruling re: Media Censorship of Env-Scarcity-Conflict Connection during Breivik trial. I have copied Aarhus Convention Committee Members, due to your failure to honourably and professionally respond to my last request for confirmation of my interpretation of the Committee’s statement. Specifically, I have still received no confirmation from the Committee to my interpretation that your statement “The reasons are clear” as confirmation of “The Committee is alleging that my requests for environmental information submitted to the media industry and bar association does not meet the committee’s interpretation of the convention’s definition of ‘environmental information.” Please take note that in the absence of a response from the Committee confirming my interpretation, my application to the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union for an Application for Annulment under Article 263 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union; shall request the General Court to interpret the application of Lara Johnstone, for annulment, as also being from JAG Lt. Cdr. Lara Braveheart, as authorized by US Navy Judge Advocate General: Vice Adm. Nanette Derenzi, as part of the NSA Æquilibriæx Sustainable Security Theses Ecology of Peace v. Near Term Extinction campaign. The declaration to US Navy Judge Advocate General: VADM Nanette Derenzi, CC: Asst. Sec. for Energy, Installations & Environment: VADM Dennis McGinn and Senator James Inhofe: NSA Æquilibriæx Sustainable Security Theses Ecology of Peace v. Near Term Extinction campaign is in support of Æquilibriæx Amicus Applications filed in among others the following cases: Germany v. Beate Zschape; United Kingdom v. Michael Adebolajo; US v Bradley Manning; US v Edward Snowden; ACLU v Clapper; Unitarian Church of LA v NSA. Appeal (PDF) to Aarhus Convention Comm (CC: Parties & Anders Breivik; Bjørn Magnus Jacobsen Ihler, Center 4 Free & Creative Expression; Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn & Former CIA Dir. James Woolsey): Request for Written Reasons: Re: Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee 26 April 2013 “manifestly unreasonable” ruling concerning compliance by Norway with provisions of the Convention in connection to ‘Scarcity & Conflict’ and ‘Environmental Complaints Policy’ access to information and access to justice (ACCC/C/2013/82).Supporting Documentation: A. List of Aarhus Convention Inadmissible Rulings. (PDF) B. ECHR: 16325/13: Johnstone v. Norway: Oslo District Court’s Breivik Necessity Judgement was Discriminatory & Ineffective Remedy. (PDF) C. Media Censorship: Citizens are ignorant of how to contribute to Sustainable Security: Procreate and Consume below carrying capacity, to avoid scarcity induced resource war conflict: Maher, Michael (1997/03): How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection.(PDF) D. Every Child Increases a Woman’s Carbon Footprint by a factor of 20: A woman can reduce her carbon footprint 19 times more by having one fewer child than by all other energy efficiency actions the E.P.A. suggests combined: Paul A. Murtaugh, Michael G. Schlax (2009): Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals; Global Environmental Change.(PDF) E. Only Civilization Collapse will prevent runaway global climate change: Industrial Civilization/Consumption Developmentism as Heat Engine Root cause of Scarcity-Conflict Climate Change-National Security Impending Near-term Extinction reality: Timothy J. Garrett (Nov. 2009), Are there basic physical constraints on future anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide?; Climatic Change.(PDF) Correspondence (PDF) to Anders Behring Breivik c/o & via: Geir Lippestad CC: Queen Elisabeth II c/o Martin Callanan MEP CC: Prime Minister Stephen Harper CC: Idle No More: Sheelah McLean, Sylvia McAdam, Jess Gordon, Nina Wilson CC: Former Senator Sam Nunn, CEO: Nuclear Threat Initiative CC: Canada Treaty Policy Directorate CC: Army General Martin E Dempsey, c/o US Army Environmental Command CC: Richard B Fadden, Dir: CSIS, c/o: Royal Canadian Mounted Police RE: Request Clarification: What would ‘Indigenous Rights’ King Anders Breivik of Norway’s suggestion be to ‘Multiculti’ Queen Elisabeth II, in response to Indigenous Rights Protest Demands of Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence and the Idle No More Red People’s Indigenous Rights Movement? Question #1: Should Queen Elisabeth honour the Treaty’s made with the First Nations, by Queen Victoria and demand that Prime Minister Stephen Harper meet with First Nation Leaders, to establish a Nation to Nation relationship between First Nations and the Government of Canada, rather than a relationship as defined in the Indian Act to address issues and (2) social and environmental sustainability? Question #2: If we are to establish a credible International European Code of Honour, we should demand the assassination of any European leader who (a) legislates Flat Earth ‘War is Peace Whore’ Tragedy of the Constitutional Commons Suicide Pacts, i.e. a ‘Peace Treaty’ which ignores confronting the Scarcity Combatant role of overpopulation and overconsumption to scarcity as an underlying cause of conflict; and/or (b) refuses to address and resolve Flat Earth ‘War is Peace Whore’ Treaties enacted by their dishonourable European predecessors who ignored confronting the Scarcity Combatant role of overpopulation and overconsumption to scarcity as an underlying cause of conflict? Issues Addressed: • Euro/Norwegian Indigenous Rights Freedom Fighter Anders Breivik • Red People’s Idle No More Indigenous Rights Movement • Queen Elisabeth declines to intervene in Chief Spence’s protest • British Crowns Responsibility to Treaties Signed with First Nations • Historical Treaties of Canada: British Crown and First Nations • Colonization of Indigenous People’s is a consequence of Overpopulation and/or Overconsumption, and Flat Earth War is Peace Whore’ Tragedy of the Constitutional Commons Suicide Pacts, i.e. ‘Peace Treaties’ which ignore/d confronting the Scarcity Combatant role of overpopulation and overconsumption to scarcity as an underlying cause of conflict. • International Military Doctrine Environmental Security & Peace Strategies addressing Scarcity as an underlying Cause of Violent Conflict • Credible Peace Treaty must include National Environmental Security and Peace Strategy, confronting Overpopulation and Overconsumption’s Role in Scarcity as underlying Cause of Conflict • SA Concourt Endorses Flat Earth ‘War is Peace Whore’ Tragedy of the Constitutional Commons Suicide Pact & SA’s Impending Race War Norway Transparency Notice's RE: Application to European Court of Human Rights: Johnstone v. Norway: Re: Violations of Article 13 (Effective Remedy) and 14 (Discrimination); sent to: Anders Breivik & Geir Lippestad (PDF); Addresseavisen: Arne Blix (PDF); Subject: Aftenposten: Ed. Haugsgjerd (PDF); Bergens Tidende: Ed Eilertsen (PDF); Dagbladet: Ed. Markussen (PDF); Env. App. Board: Ms. Strom (PDF); Fremskrittspartiet: Ms. Siv Jensen (PDF); Min Foreign Aff: Mr. Espen Eide (PDF); Min of Justice: Grete Faremo (PDF); NRK: Ed: Hans Bjerkaas (PDF); Supreme Court: Sec. Gen. Gunnar Bergby (PDF); Supreme Court: Justice Tore Schei (PDF); Oslo Dist Court: Judge Arntzen (PDF); Oslo Dist Court: Judge Nina Opsahl (PDF); Parl Ombudsman: Arne Fliflet (PDF); Pros Svein Holden & Inga Engh, c/o NO Police (PDF); Den Rettsmedisinske Kommisjon: Psych Husby & Sorheim (PDF); Supv. Comm for Judges: Espen Eiken (PDF); TV2: Ed: Alf Hildrum (PDF); VG: Ed: Torry Pedersen (PDF); 22 Juli Victim Families; c/o Hallgren, Elgesem & Larsen (PDF); Miljøpartiet De Grønne: Marcussen & Nissen (PDF); Hoyre: Erna Solberg (PDF); KRF: Knut Arild Hareide (PDF); KSP: Ørnulf Nandrup (PDF); Arbeiderpartiet: Jens Stoltenberg (PDF); AUF: Eskil Pedersen (PDF); PensionerParty: Einar Lonstad (PDF); Rodt: Bjornar Moxnes (PDF); SV: Audun Lysbakken (PDF); Venstre: Trine Skei Grande (PDF) I have filed an application to the European Court of Human Rights, under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Rules 45 and 47 of the Rules of Court. Specifically the violations are: • Discrimination: 24 August 2012: Oslo District Court: Judge Wenche Arntzen: Norway v. Anders Breivik Necessity Judgement • Discrimination and Denied Right to an Effective Remedy: Supreme Court: Secretary General Gunnar Bergby: 10 September 2012 Decision • Discrimination and Denied Right to an Effective Remedy: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Head of Division: Berit Sollie: 15 November 2012 Ruling Respectfully, Lara Johnstone Encl: Johnstone v. Norway Application to ECHR (Application Exhibits not enclosed) Supreme Court Registrar: Req. for Case Number or Reasons for Failure to Provide Case Number31/8/2012 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. Email to Secr. Supervisory Committee for Judges: Espen Eiken: Subject: [31.08] RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl I am still awaiting a response to the questions in my correspondence of 01 August 2012, and 21 August, in response to your correspondence of 31 July 2012. 1. Committee does not Acknowledge Receipt of Complaints I am confused: Is the Committee deliberately or negligently ignorant that it's behaviour contradicts its alleged goals of encouraging confidence in the courts?[1]. If the Committee is unable to identify very basic common sense unethical conduct in its own procedures (namely to professionally acknowledge receipt of any complaint to inform a complainant of the complaints procedures); is such behaviour not conducive to undermining confidence in the Committee's work; and consequently in the broader role of the court system? 2. Standard Procedure: Can you please clarify; so that I am crystal clear about the Committee's process, and can continue these proceedings with confidence in the Committee's impartial objectivity and professionalism: 1. It will take six months for me to be issued a case number? 2. Or, it will take six months to complete the complaint enquiry? 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: Norway Supreme Court Application of: LARA JOHNSTONE: Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement delivered on 24 August 2012 (PDF) 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. Correspondence to Ms. Eiken: Supervisory Committee for Judges: RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl Transparency Update: [1] Updated Info: Relevant Excerpt: RH Ecofeminist Letter to Mr. Breivik: Request to Mr. Breivik to "please clarify what exactly your instructions were to your Attorneys in response to the applications I filed in Oslo District Court: Judge Nina Opsahl (Habeus Mentem: Right to Legal Sanity) and Judge Wenche (Amicus Curiae: Friend of the Court) and the Norwegian Supreme Court: Review and Declaratory Order." [2] The 170 complaints (CCBE Code of Ethics: Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial) against Defence and Victims Families Attorneys referred to Bar Associations, have been submitted to the Environmental Appeals Board ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com > RH Court Records > Env. Appeals Board: [3] No Response from Supv. Comm. for Judges to my questions (01 August 2012) in response to your correspondence (31 July 2012). Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:44 AM Subject: RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl |
RH Data Archive:Radical Honoursty Eco-Feminist legal applications and complaints submitted to Norwegian and European Authorities in the Norway v. Breivik trial.
Archives
April 2016
Categories
All
|