Pentti Linkolian Wild Law Applic to Norway Supreme Court: Review Breivik Judgement Necessity Ruling & Conviction

Pentti Linkolian Wild Law Applic to Norway Supreme Court: Review Breivik Judgement Necessity Ruling & Conviction

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.

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.

Mr. Pentti Linkola
Natural Heritage Foundation
Luonnonperintösäätiö
Palokunnankatu 24 B 29, 13100 Hämeenlinna

Dear Mr. Linkola,

Wild Law Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review of Breivik Judgement

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:

The Courts Judgement of Breivik - like most Patriarchal Anthropocentric legalism - is about Left vs. Right Wing Blame Game polarisation and parasitisim, not about transparent root cause problem solving, which requires confronting the ecological and lack of psychological integrity root causes of our disputes.

Breivik – like most Ego Anthropocentric Patriarchal (male or female) Parasites - wants greater Left vs. Right wing blame game polarization. When the court denies him his right to an objective and subjective examination of his necessity defence, and gives him a rubber stamp of ‘guilt’; then his argument about so-called ‘Corrupt Feminism’ (and make no mistake there are corrupt non-democratic feminists, who are more patriarchal and parasitical than many men) is confirmed, and he tars all of Feminism with the same brush. We are all idiotic braindead Barbie Doll brood sows, who belong in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, spreading our legs and popping out unwanted children to be used and abused by the parasitical war economy profiteers.

What Breivik fears more than any ‘insanity’ ruling, is that there are Feminists and ‘left wing bleeding heart do-gooders’ who will actually overcome their left wing blame game hatred and kneejerk reactions to his rhetoric, and uphold principles such as the ‘right to a free and fair trial’.

Arguments include reference to the work of Chris Clugston (Scarcity: Peak Non-Renewable Natural Resources, and his Sustainability Definition: Civilisation is and never was, or can be sustainable), and the one-child only advocacy work of Former Judge Jason Brent and his book: Humans: An Endangered Species:

Notice of Motion:

Necessity Judgements ‘Extreme Political Objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test; and is a Left vs. Right Wing Blame Game Parasite Leeching Polarization – not a Matriarchal Ecological and Psychological Integrity Root Cause Problem Solving – conclusion.

A Matriarchal Radical Problem Solving Accountability Enquiry would have examined both the underlying ecological reality environment, and the underlying psychological integrity environment of the dispute between the defendant and the victims.

A healthy ecological environment, with due regard for carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights; similarly a psychological integrity environment of philosophical radical transparency courageous truth searching radical honesty relationships that inforlve sincere forgiveness is a sine qua non for healthy, transparent relationships that result in the co-creation of a code of conduct that enables non-violent honest sincere resolutions to disagreements.

[..]

From a broader ecological perspective, all human economics and politics are irrelevant.

Myth: Through enlightened economic and political policies and initiatives at the national and global levels, we will overcome all obstacles to global industrialism and enable a continuously improving industrialized lifestyle for our ever-increasing global population.

Reality: Unfortunately, the fundamental cause underlying our predicament is ecological—ever increasing NNR scarcity—it is not economic or political. The economic and political issues that we address and attempt to resolve are merely manifestations of our predicament—they are symptoms, not the disease.

Since none of the economic and political expedients that we employ to solve these problems can create additional NNRs—which are the primary enablers of our industrialized way of life—our economic and political “solutions” are irrelevant.

In fact, from the broader ecological perspective, all human economics and politics are irrelevant.

Because the underlying cause associated with our transition from prosperity to austerity is ecological (geological), not economic or political, our incessant barrage of economic and political “fixes” – fiscal and monetary “stimulus” – is misguided and inconsequential. Our national economies are not “broken”; they are “dying of slow starvation” for lack of sufficient economically viable NNR inputs.

Our industrial lifestyle paradigm, which is enabled by enormous quantities of finite, nonreplenishing, and increasingly scarce NNRs, is unsustainable – actually, physically impossible – going forward.

Global humanity’s steadily deteriorating condition will culminate in self-inflicted global societal collapse, almost certainly by the year 2050. We will not accept gracefully our new normal of ever-increasing, geologically-imposed austerity; nor will we suffer voluntarily the horrifically painful population level reductions and material living standard degradation associated with our inevitable transition to a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm.

Scarcity is a comprehensive, multidisciplinary assessment of the realities, choices, and likely outcomes associated with ever-increasing nonrenewable natural resource (NNR) scarcity. NNRs are the fossil fuels, metals, and nonmetallic minerals that enable our industrialized existence. Scarcity is also the story of a species, Homo sapiens, whose superior intellect should have caused it to eschew natural resource utilization behavior through which lower order species often experience population “irruptions” followed by “die-offs”. No such luck… Scarcity will enable you to make sense of a world that is experiencing the most profound paradigm shift in human history.

From Affidavit:

Sustainable Democracy Wild Law requires at minimum a ‘Carrying Capacity Footprint’ Licence to Vote, and until a national carrying capacity footprint is achieved, either a licence to Breed recognizing Judge Jason Brent’s acknowledgement of the penis and womb as the most potent weapons of war and the ecologically irresponsible use of our penis and wombs to be considered as acts of war ; or adoption of Judge Jason Brent’s anti-war one child per two adults only policy: Humans: An Endangered Species: Shocking Proposal: “limit the right of any male to father only one live child and limit the right of every woman to one live birth. [..] Since survival of our species depends on the one child rule, under my proposal any attempt to evade the rule would result in death of the evader and of any second child. The rule to be fair must be absolute, without a single exception. [..] Population would continue to be reduced pursuant to the method [..] until it reached 300 million [or a number] based on the ability of the earth to provide resources for humanity to maintain an acceptable standard of living for a minimum of 25,000 years.” [Annex C: Sustainability Defined]

Green Carrying Capacity Footprint Licence to Vote: A sustainable democracy or republic only allows citizens who live below the nations carrying capacity in terms of procreation and consumption, the licence to vote. Any citizen whose consumption and/or procreation footprint is above the nations carrying capacity footprint is effectively robbing future generations of the nations resources that should be conserved and preserved for their future. We don’t give robbers the code to the nations bank safes; so why do we give citizen ecological rapists and robbers a licence to vote and bribe politicians to rob future generations resources?

Green Carrying Capacity Footprint Licence to Legal Ethical and Psycho-Integrity Legal Credibility: Citizens whose carrying capacity lifestyle is green in terms of procreation and consumption, i.e. who would or should be granted the licence to vote have (or should have) higher legal ethical and psycho-integrity credibility in a court of law, or in any political or economic dispute, considering that they practice what they preach in terms of living a lifestyle that does not contribute to ecological degradation, resource depletion, overpopulation and local, national or international resource wars.

[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:

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 public are so ignorant about what is required of a court when an accused pleads to necessity, then nobody will demand that the accused’s argument be tested according to the required objective and subjective necessity defense test.

Breivik precedent – both legally (in Norway) and elsewhere in terms of public knowledge regarding the requirements for an accused pleading to ‘necessity’, thanks to the most publicly broadcast ‘necessity’ trial ever -- 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.


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

Set Aside the Judgements Failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges , as a violation of Aarhus - CONVENTION ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS - Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5) principles, and general ECHR public accountability Transparency (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom) principles.

A copy of the Notice of Motion, Affidavit and Attachments are available at:
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/nom--affidavit.html

EcoRights Regards,

Lara Johnstone

» » » » [EcoFem v. Breivik :: PDF]