US Court of Appeals for Armed Forces: Media Censorship of Ecocentric Wild Law Arguments in Resource Scarcity Court Disputes

US Court of Appeals for Armed Forces: Media Censorship of Ecocentric Wild Law Arguments in Resource Scarcity Court Disputes Amicus filed

US Court of Appeals for Armed Forces to consider an Amicus Application to issue of Media Censorship in Bradley Manning courtmartial; that provides evidence of Media censorship of Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security arguments to court disputes in McBride v Citizen, Afriforum v Malema and Norway v Breivik which prove the Media's Left vs Right wing polarization agenda.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminists vs. Breivik | 14 September 2012

Application to Proceed as Amicus Curiae electronically filed (PDF) in United States Court of Appeals for Armed Services: Subject: CCR v. United States - Dkt. No. 12-8027/AR - electronic filing [Crim. App. Misc.: Dkt. No. 20120514 || USCA Misc. Dkt. No. 12-8027/AR]

Petitioners: CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, ET AL.: Glenn Greenwald, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!,The Nation and its national security correspondent Jeremy Scahill, Wikileaks and its publisher, Julian Assange; Kevin Gosztola, co-author of Truth and Consequences: The U.S. vs. Bradley Manning, and Chase Madar: author of The Passion of Bradley Manning

Respondents: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and COL. DENISE LIND, MILITARY JUDGE

Amici: REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: Allbritton Communications Company, American Society of News Editors, The Associated Press, Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, Atlantic Media, Inc., Cable News Network, Inc., Digital Media Law Project, Dow Jones & Company, Inc., The E.W. Scripps Company, First Amendment Coalition, Gannett Co., Inc., Hearst Corporation, Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, The McClatchy Company, Military Reporters & Editors, The National Press Club, National Press Photographers Association, New England First Amendment Coalition, New York Daily News, The New York Times, Newspaper Association of America, The Newspaper Guild – CWA, North Jersey Media Group Inc., Online News Association, POLITICO LLC, Radio Television Digital News Association, Reuters, Society of Professional Journalists, Tribune Company, The Washington Post and WNET.

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED AS AMICUS CURIAE

[1] For an Order to approve the Applicant, to Appear Pro Se (propria persona / pro per), pursuant to Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 92 and Rules 13(a) and 33 (leniency on procedure and Radical Honesty English) of this Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, to appear pro hac vice for the limited purpose of being admitted as an Amicus Curiae.

[2] For an Order to approve the Applicant as an Ecocentric Amici Curiae in the above Anthropocentric proceedings in the form of written submissions in accordance with Rule 26(a)(3), of the Rules of Court.

14 Sept: US Court of Appeals for Armed Services Clerk Response:
Response from US Court of Appeals for Armed Services: Clerk of the Court: Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 13:17 PM: Subject: RE: CCR v. United States - Dkt. No. 12-8027/AR - electronic filing: "Your pleadings have been received and referred to the Court."

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.