Pentti Linkolian Wild Law Applic to Norway Supreme Court: Review Breivik Judgement Necessity Ruling & Conviction
Three aspects that are Wild Law or Ecologically Focussed:  Courts Breivik Judgement is a Left vs. Right Wing Blame Game Judgement, not an Ecological Root Cause Problem Solving Judgement;  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;  Judgement’s Transparency Failure violates Aarhus Environment Transparency Convention principles and public accountability impartiality principles.
Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminists vs. Breivik | 29 August 2012
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.