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)

Subject: Communication to the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee: [01/02] Communication & Summary (PDF)

Communication to the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee – Alleged Non-Compliance by Kingdom of Norway with the obligations under the Aarhus Convention: Rejection of Request for Access to Environmental Information from (a) Newspaper Editors, and (b) Bar Association; by Norwegian Environment Appeals Committee and Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Emails:
[01/02] Attachments: Communication & Summary
[02/02] Attachments: Enclosures [A]-[H]

Overview of Communication: 

[1.1] Non-compliance to Access to Information (Article 4 (1) & (7)), by Media Editors: Adresseavisen: Editor: Arne Blix; Aftenposten: Editor: Hilde Haugsgjerd; Bergens Tidende: Editor: Trine Eilertsen; Dagbladet: Editor: John Arne Markussen; NRK: Editor: Hans Tore Bjerkaas; TV2: Editor: Alf Hildrum; VG: Editor: Torry Pedersen.

[1.2] A general failure to implement, or implement correctly, the General (Article 3(1)) and Collection and Dissemination of Environmental Information (Article 5(1)) provisions of the Convention; by the Bar Association (Advokatforeningen): Disciplinary Committee and Disciplinary Board for Advocates (Disiplinærnemnden for advokater).

[1.3] Non-Compliance to Access to Justice (Article 9 (1) & (4)), by the Environmental Appeals Board (Klagenemnda for miljøinformasjon): Erroneous ‘Environmental Information’ definition, Denied Due Process and Effective Remedy. 

[1.4] Non-Compliance to Access to Justice (Article 9 (1) & (4)), by the Parliamentary Ombudsman: Denied Due Process & Effective Remedy.

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)

According to: LAW 2003-05-09 # 31: Act concerning the right to information and participation in public decision-making processes relating to the environment (environmental law).
http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-20030509-031.html

--------

§ 2 What is understood by environmental
(1) An environmental means factual information and reviews about
a) environment,
b) factors that affect or may affect the environment, including
- planned and implemented measures and activities in the environment,
- product features or content,
- Ratio of operating the business, and
- administrative decisions and actions, including individual decisions, agreements, regulations, plans, strategies and programs, and associated analyzes, calculations and assumptions,
c) human health, safety and living conditions to the extent they are or may be affected by the state of the environment or the factors mentioned in b
(2) The environment means the environment including cultural heritage.
--------

The Aarhus Convention defines 'environmental information' as:

-----------
3. “Environmental information” means any information in written, visual, aural, electronic or any other material form on:

(a) The state of elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites, biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms, and
the interaction among these elements;

(b) Factors, such as substances, energy, noise and radiation, and activities or measures, including administrative measures, environmental agreements, policies, legislation, plans and programmes, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment within the scope of subparagraph (a) above, and cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used in environmental decision-making;

(c) The state of human health and safety, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures, inasmuch as they are or may be affected by the state of the elements of the environment or, through these elements, by the factors, activities or measures referred to in subparagraph (b) above;
-----------

The information requested of the Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG clearly - if you read it - falls under both LAW 2003-05-09 # 31: Environmental Law and the Aarhus Convention definitions. 

The information requested of Norwegian Bar Association´s Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Board clearly falls under both LAW 2003-05-09 # 31: Environmental Law and the Aarhus Convention definitions.

It is therefore not remotely obvious why you wrote:

"When receiving appeals that clearly have to be denied, it is not necessary to ask the respondents to provide their arguments. In these cases the secretariat prepares a draft decision and consults the members of the board. If the draft decision is approved by the members of the board, no further discussion is needed. This makes the Appeals Board able to settle obvious cases without arranging unnecessary meetings. Your appeals have been settled this way. Because no meeting has taken place, you will not receive a signed decision."

Is the secretariat for the Appeals Board for Environmental Information | www.miljoklagenemnda.no | Environmental Appeals Board just a Fake PR front for Corporate whores raping the planet? Setup just to pretend Nowegian Government gives a fuck about the environment? You just sit there and rubber stamp environmental requests with " clearly have to be denied" and laugh how massively stupid the citizens are for believing the bullshit in your Duhmockery press releases that you legislate laws to encourage citizens to:

* contribute to the protection of the environment
* protect against health and environmental 
* influence public and private decision makers in environmental issues

When receiving appeals that clearly have to be denied, it is not necessary to ask the respondents to provide their arguments. In these cases the secretariat prepares a draft decision and consults the members of the board. If the draft decision is approved by the members of the board, no further discussion is needed. This makes the Appeals Board able to settle obvious cases without arranging unnecessary meetings. Your appeals have been settled this way. Because no meeting has taken place, you will not receive a signed decision.  

Response from Parliamentary Ombudsman: Complaint Regarding the Appeals Board for Environmental Information.

Reference is made to your letter 1 September 2012 and complaints from 2 September 2012 where you revisit your case regarding slow case processing at the Appeals board for Environmental Information. You state taht you have still not received any response from the Appeals Board.

In a telephone conversation 7 September 20111 the secretariat for the Appeals Board stated that they have received your letters and are currently working on their response. It was also informed that the prelimintary case processing unfortunately has taken longer than first expected, but you should be receiving a response within a few weeks.

On this background, the Ombudsman has not found ground for further investigation of your latest complaint here. In the event that you do not receive any response within the expected time period or a reasonable time after that, you are welcome to contact the Ombudsman again.

A copy of your letter 1 September 2012 and a copy of this letter will be sent the Appeals board for Environmental Information for their information.