Page 1

TILSYNSUTV ALGET FOR DOMMERE

Likelydende brev til: Ms Lara Johnstone Amicus Curiae 16 Taaibos Ave Heatherpark George 6529 South Africa imcswan@mweb.co.za Tingrettsdommer Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen Oslo tingrett Postboks 8023 Dep. 0030 OSLO Deres ref:

Var ref:

Data:

201200623-6/228- TU Juridisk saksbehandler: Espen Eiken

23.10.2012

SAK 72/12: KLAGE PA TINGRETTSDOMMER WENCHE ELISABETH ARNTZEN VED OSLO TINGRETT. UNDERRETNING OM VEDT AK. Vedlagt oversendes vedtak i sak 72/12 fattet i Tilsynsutvalgets m0te den 23. oktober 2012. Tilsynsutvalgets vedtak kan ikke paklages etter forvaltningslovens regler. Partene i saken kan bringe utvalgets vedtak inn for domstolen ved s0ksmal. S0ksmalsfristen er to maneder etter at partene ble underrettet om vedtaket. Det vises n<:ermeretil domstolloven ยง 239. Vedtaket er offentlig, j f. offentleglova ยง 3. Kopi av dette vedtak sendes domstolleder ved Oslo tingrett til orientering.

Med hilsen Sekretariatet for Tilsynsutvalget for dommere

Wenche Venas (Sign.) Dette brevet er godkjent elektronisk i Domstoladministrasjonens har derfor ingen signatur.

Sekretariatet for Tilsynsutvalget for dam mere

Pastadresse Damstaladministrasjonen Postbaks 5678 Sluppen 7485 Trondheim

Besoksadresse Dronningensgt.2

Telefon 73 567000

Telefaks 73567001

saksbehandlingssystem

E-past tilsynsutvalget@domstol.no

og


TILSYNSUTV ALGET FOR DOMMERE

Tilsynsutvalget for dommere har den 23. oktober 2012 truffet vedtak i Sak nr:

72/12 (arkivnr: 201200623-5)

Saken gjelder:

Klage fra Lara Johnstone pa tingrettsdommer Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen ved Oslo tingrett

Utvalgsmedlem:

Bj0rn HUbert Senum (vara), etter fullmakt

Offentlighet:

Vedtaket er offentlig, j f. offentleglova ยง 3.

Vedtak:

Det er ikke grunnlag for disiplinrertiltak mot tingrettsdommer Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen. Klagen er apenbart ubegrunnet.

Sekretariatet Tilsynsutvalget for dommere

for

Postadresse Domstoladministrasjonen Postboks 5678 Sluppen 7485 Trondheim

Beseksadresse Dronningensgt.2

Telefon 73567000

Telefaks 73 567001

E-post tilsynsutvalget@domstol.no


._~-------------------------------------------------2

Innledning: Lara Johnstone har den 6. juni 2012 inngitt klage pa tingrettsdommer Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen ved Oslo tingrett. Klager er bosatt i S0r-Afrika, og klagen er skrevet pa engelsk. Tilsynsutvalget for dommere har i medhold av domstolloven § 238 sjette ledd delegert til utvalgets leder, nestleder og advokatmedlem a avgj0re klager som er apenbart ubegrunnet. Klagen behandles etter dette av utvalgets vara-advokatmedlem i henhold til nevnte fullmakt.

Tilsynsutvalget for dommere ser slik pa saken: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere kan treffe vedtak om disiplineertiltak dersom en dommer forsettlig eller uaktsomt overtrer de plikter som stillingen medf0rer, eller for 0vrig opptrer i strid med god dommerskikk, jf. domstolloven § 236 f0fste ledd. Klagen er omfangsrik og knytter seg til 22. juli-saken, som ble avviklet ved Oslo tingrett varen og sommeren 2012. Klager har for 0vrig ikke veert en akt0r i rettssaken eller pa annen mate veert direkte involvert i saken. Det er derfor tvilsomt om klager overhodet har klagerett. Etter utvalgets mening gir klagen f0rst og fremst uttrykk for klagers generelle synspunkter pa det norske rettssystemet og det norske politiske systemet. Det fremgar av klagedokumentene at Johnstone representerer en politisk-kulturell bevegelse (Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist). Det er ingen holdepunkter i klagen for a si at tingrettsdommer Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen har opptradt i strid med god dommerskikk. Klagen fremstar etter dette som apenbart ubegrunnet. Det fattes f01gende vedtak: Det er ikke grunnlag for disiplineertiltak mot tingrettsdommer Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen. Klagen er apenbart ubegrunnet.

Bj0rn HUbert Senum


TILSYNSUTV ALGET FOR DOMMERE

Skjema for klage pa dommere til Tilsynsutvalget for dommere (TV) (dette skjemaet blir scannet inn av oss, vennUgst skriv tydelig med svart/blG penn. Farger og uthevinger bUr ikke registrert.)

1. Vennligst kryss av hvilken type dommer klagen gjelder (velg felt I eller felt 2): 1.

D

2.

Klage pa dommer( e) i tingrett Ilagmannsrett I H0yesterett (de alminnelige domstolene) Klage pa dommer( e) i jordskifteretten I jordskifteoverretten Gordskiftedomstolene)

2. Hva er dommerens fulle navn, og hva heter domstolen hvor dommeren arbeider? VennIi st an i: g g

~ 'tHCiIÂŁ Iv~;lA-?~1JI

4'

f'/7;Z&Y

/..

{}JO

;jfa'aÂŁ( 751'

3. Hvem er du og hvilken rolle hadde du i den aktuelle sak hvor du 0nsker a klage pa dommeren (kryss av for det som passer i riktig felt):

M D 0wt~ D~

HI 2.

Forsvarer Advokat Aktor Part Media F Vitne Domstolleder ornrermet i saken i saken Andre Lekdommer Istraffesak meddommer 4. 11. 9. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 1. 6. Domstoladministrasjonen 3. 7. 8. 10. 12. 2.4. Depm1ementet Advokatforeningen Prosessfullmektig Prosessfullmektigipart (velg (begge det som er passer klagere)nedenfor i alt. 2.1-2.4) 5. S akkyndig ii saken


TILSYNSUTV ALGET FOR DOMMERE

13. Annen tilknytning 'Yf aktuelle dommer ) :£:;VIJcL Vennligst forklar: til saken og!fJ.£r/

kR/J

!l-IflILU<;

t:bAc !£/bt/J ~

~

/JpjJIJc/lHI

71¥

4. Angi kort hvilket (evt. hvilke) forhold du mener dommeren har begatt som er i strid med reglene om god dommerskikk. Trenger vi utfYllende informasjon om forholdet, herunder oversendelse av dokumenter i sakenfra deg, vii vi be dette fremlagt pa et senere tidspunkt.

/~U

WUtIHI

5U!:tflrr7bIJ ON

Jo /ltty

oLCT/d.

Sdf£(·r.' k'#'IJZ"IVIJ-i-~r /ii 4c£.~ X/Jt£ WblU/£ 1!&.~5Y~ . I 5- 7. /~'

f


TILSYNSUTV ALGET FOR DOMMERE

5. Vennligst oppgi domstolens saksnummer, dersom dette er tilgjengelig:

6. Nar skjedde det aktuelle forholdet som klagen bygger pa? Tidfest forholdet sa n0yaktig som mulig i dato og arstall:

/ s- ilPfltl-

(;201:J -

1f:);/1,-; ;lut:X

Den vanlige klagefristen er 3 maneder. Det gjelder dessuten en absolutt klagefrist pa 1 ar. Tilsynsutvalget har derfor ikke anledning til a ta klager for forhold som skjedde senere enn 1 ar til behandling. Vi gj0r videre oppmerksom pa at det er visse forhold det ikke er anledning til a klage over. Vi viser her til var hjemmeside (www.domstol.noltilsynsutvalget) under lenken "Hvordan gar jegfram".

Dette skjemaet skrives ut og signeres, og sendes til: Tilsynsutvalget Trondheim.

for dommere, Domstoladministrasjonen,

Postboks 5678 Sluppen, 7485

Benytt alternativt telefaks nr. 73567001.

kR/7

L~~

Klagers navo (Bruk blokkbokstaver)

Klagers adresse (Bruk blokkbokstaver) '\ /

Sted og dato

Underskrift


Norway v. Breivik

Case: 11-188627 MED-05

‘Lawyers are either social engineers, or they are parasites. Social Engineer Lawyers aim to eliminate the difference between what the laws say and mean, and how they are applied; whereas legal parasites aim to entrench their parasitism from the difference between what the laws say and mean, and the application of such differences to their parasitic benefit.’ - Prof. Charlie Houston, mentor of Justice Thurgood Marshall, Simple Justice: History of Brown v. Board of Education1 P O Box 5042 George East, 6539 Cell: (071) 170 1954 29 May 2012 Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, National Courts Administration, Dronningensgt. 2, 7485 Trondheim Postboks 5678 Sluppen Tel: 73 56 70 00 | Fax: 73 56 70 01 E-mail: Supv. Comm. Judges (tilsynsutvalget@domstol.no) CC: Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen Judge: Oslo District Court Postboks 8023 Dep., 0030 Oslo | C.J. Hambros Plass 4, 0164 Oslo Sentralbord 22 03 52 00 | Tel/Faks: 22 03 5212 | 22 03 53 54 E-post: oslo.tinghus.sentralbord@domstol.no, oslo.tingrett.postmottak@domstol.no E-post: Judge Wenche Arntzen (wenche.arntzen@domstol.no)

Complaint against Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media)2. [A] Overview of Complaint:

1

Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education, the epochal Supreme Court decision that outlawed segregation, and of black America’s century-long struggle for equality under law, by Richard Kluger; Random House (1975) (pp126-129) 2 http://www.domstol.no/upload/DA/Internett/da.no/Publikasjoner/ Ethical%20principles%20for%20the%20proper%20conduct%20of%20Norwegian%20judges.pdf

29/05/12 Complaint Against Judge Wenche E Arntzen norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr


Complainant filed a legal application to the Oslo District Court in the Norway v. Breivik matter being adjudicated by Judge Arntzen. Judge Arntzen refuses to provide any judgement to the applications whatsoever, whether to clarify any procedural errors by the applicant requiring correction, or to deny the applications with written reasons in accordance to due process. [See complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei: The complainant finally filed an application for review to the Norway Supreme Court, who refused to hear the application stating “that the Supreme Court of Norway only handles appeals against judgments given by the lower courts and can consequently not deal with the issue mentioned in your e-mails”; even though Judge Arntzen‟s conduct clearly indicated irregularities in her refusal to provide a „judgement‟. Judge Arntzen simply refuses to provide any due process response which could lead to a free and fair hearing „judgement‟, in response to the applications to her court. Conduct by a Judge which refuses to provide an applicant to their right to relevant due process procedure for a fair hearing to reach a judgement, is thereby in and of itself, a „judgement decision‟ to deny the individual access to a free and fair hearing due process judgement.].

[B] Chronology of Facts 15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court: Amicus Curiae: [1]

On 15 April 2012, Complainant filed an Application to the Oslo District Court: Application to proceed as In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amicus Curiae for an Order (1) to approve the Applicant as an In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amici Curiae, and (2) Amending the Charges Against the Defendant and Applicant to include Treason in terms of Article 85 of Norwegian Constitution, and if found guilty, in a free and fair trial; to be executed by firing squad. The application requested the Prosecution and Defence to respond by 23 April 2012 either consenting to, or objecting to, the application. The email application was sent on Sun 4/15/2012 5:42 PM, Subject: OSLO CRT REGISTRAR: 11-188627 MED-05: Notice of Application: Amicus Curiae from Norwegian Jus Sanguinis African White Refugee.

[2]

On 26 April 2012, Complainant contacted the court to request that: “There has been no response from the Prosecution and Defence either consenting to, or objecting to, my application to proceed as an Amicus. Please could you confirm: (1) The date my application is to be submitted to Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, or the relevant Judge, for her/their consideration. (2) The date the said Judge intends to provide me with their ruling approving or denying my application.”

[3]

There has been no response from the Clerk of the Court. I imagine that Judge Opsahl or some unknown individual has ordered the Clerk to ignore the application, without providing any reasons for such denial of due process behaviour. Refusal to respond to an application implies that the application is being denied, and that the applicant is unworthy of a transparent due process response3.

[4]

If approved, the Applicants Amicus written submissions would (a) address alternative legal arguments to those of both the Prosecution and Defense, i.e. from a Problem Solving Radical Transparency EcoFeminists perspective as opposed to the Prosecution & Defense‟s Parasite

3

[Field Manual No. FM 3-0, Headquarters Department of the Army, June 2001: Chapter 11: Information Superiority] When you engage someone openly with “white” information operations, i.e. IO (Information Operations) where your identity is clear and explicit, you imply that they are roughly your equal. By speaking to or of them directly, you point up that they are important enough to demand your attention and your reply.

29/05/12 Complaint Against Judge Wenche E Arntzen norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr


Leeching Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal perspectives; (b) „argue points deemed too far reaching for emphasis by parties intent on winning their particular Parasite Leeching Masculine Insecurity case‟4; (c) „apprise the court of Problem Solving Radical Transparency EcoFeminists legal, social, economic, ecological and cultural enquiry implications for its consideration‟5 to allow the court to base its decision on a larger, more comprehensive, and more accurate reality based natural law legal framework; (d) provide the court with hard evidence of (I) nonviolent Jus Sanguinis African White Refugee applications filed to European Heads of State for France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom and NATO Military Committee; providing evidentiary arguments for support for a Boer Volkstaat; or Jus Sanguinis Right of Return to Europe for African White Refugees; (II) how former and current UNHCR, ECRE and ELENA Officials deliberately wish to censor the issue of African White Refugees from public scrutiny and knowledge6; so that the court‟s final judgment shall include a Problem Solving Radical Transparency EcoFeminists legal analysis7.

[C] Judge Arntzen’s Violation of Ethical Principles for Judges: Judge Arntzen‟s violations occurred specifically on or around 15 April 2012 and 26 April 2012, or at the specific times whereupon the complainants Amicus Curiae application, and complainants subsequent written correspondence, was provided to her for her due process acceptance and processing, whereupon her decision-making occurred to ignore the application without providing any written reasons for denying the applicant due process procedural access to the court for a free and fair hearing.

(1) Basic Requirements/Rule of Law: Judges should conduct themselves in conformity with the law, the legal system and norms for proper conduct among judges, and in such a way that it promotes public confidence in the courts.

The rule of law requires legislation (or judgements or court officials decision-making) to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom8). Put differently all government officials, and even more so judicial branch officials should provide all citizens with honest and clear answers response from the Court regarding the status of their applications, in terms of the rule of law principle that requires legislation (or judgements) to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom9) Public confidence is enhanced by simple honesty; and hugely diminished by legal officials who practice plausible deniability public relations image management, by delibaretely avoiding providing clear simple honest answers for their judicial or administrative decisions. Judges should set an example of simple honest transparent conduct for both the legal establishment and citizens, if promoting uniformity of law, legal clarity, legal development, openness and 4

Luther T. Munford, When Does the Curiae Need an Amicus?, 1 J. App. Prac. & Process 279, 280 (1999). Paul M. Sandler & Andew D. Levy, Appellate Practice for the Maryland Lawyer: State and Federal: Amicus Briefs 331 (1994). 6 (A) Monaco-RSA: Prince Albert II's Hon. Consul demands Jus Sanguinis delete African White Refugees Petition to Principality of Monaco webpage (B) African White Refugee Petition to NL:ECRE & ELENA Officials posted to ECRE & ELENA Facebook Wall deleted; (C) Prof. Denis Alland, Univ. Paris II; UNHCR Rep. (1989-97), ECRE & ELENA Refugee Law Expert Declares Legal War on African White Refugees; (D) French UNHCR Rep. & EU Legal Network on Asylum (ELENA) Law Prof.'s legal allergy to Jus Sanguinis Boer Volkstaat 4 African White Refugees Petition; (E) http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/search/label/*%20ECRE-ELENA%3A%20Anti-White%20Refugee%20Bias 7 Paul M. Smith, The Sometimes Troubled Relationship Between Courts and Their “Friends”, note 2, at 26 (1998). 8 Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html 9 Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html 5

29/05/12 Complaint Against Judge Wenche E Arntzen norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr


transparency as the court's business10 is their sincere practice what they preach commitment, and not just more „bullshit-the-public relations image management‟.

(2) Independence A judge should exercise his/her adjudicative role with independence, without an extraneous judicial influence from public or private interests.

It is suspected that the Judge Arntzen‟s failure to exercise his administrative role with independence, by such plausible deniable attempts to deny the applicants applications from entering the court record in this matter, are a result of his public relations image management paranoia related to controversial arguments in complainant‟s application.

(3) Impartiality A judge should exercise their adjudicatory role with impartiality, both in facto and by appearance, and in such a way that the impartiality of the judge cannot be reasonably questioned. Judges should not express any legal preposition in cases that either are allocated to the judge or are likely to be allocated to him or her. Judges should exercise their adjudicative role without prejudice. Judges should actively create conditions for amicable solutions. However, the parties should not be subjected to pressure from judges in achieving such solutions.

A judge‟s administrative adjucatory decision to refuse a particular application should include written reasons based upon valid legal justified ground to avoid the perception or probability of bias in her decision-making.

(4) Integrity Judges should behave in a way that does not threaten the public confidence in the courts and judiciary. A judge must not, for own benefit or for others, receive gifts or other benefits that may be regarded as being related to the exercise of their adjudicative role.

Withholding of honest information is a form of lying and deception, and also a violation of the principle that the rule of law requires legislation (or judgements) to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom11).

(5) Equality Judges should pay attention to the principle of equal treatment of parties and other actors before the courts. Judges should base their decisions on objective considerations when awarding tasks or contracts on behalf of the court.

The complainant has not received anything remotely resembling equal treatment in terms of being provided with a written response, including written reasons based upon legal grounds; to her application to the court.

10 11

http://www.domstol.no/no/Enkelt-domstol/-Norges-Hoyesterett/ Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html

29/05/12 Complaint Against Judge Wenche E Arntzen norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr


Complainant is a paralegal12 member of the Radical Honesty culture [See: SA Constitutional Court Order by the Chief Justice in CCT 23-10: The Citizen v. Robert McBride13 on 03 May 2010: “The Chief Justice has issued the following directions: Ms. Lara Johnstone, Member of the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion is admitted as an Amicus Curiae.” (Annex A)] and does not think it is too much „Multiculti Legal Respect‟ to ask for any honest, impartial Judge to provide any individual, not just lawyers from „legal organisations‟, with a fair honest response to their legal application to their court.

(7) Formulation of Court Decisions Judges should, in his or her formulation of court decisions, pay due regard to all involved persons, so far it is in conformity with the requirements for the legal grounding of decisions.

The complainat is unaware of any legal grounds for a judge to simply refuse any application to their court, without providing legal written reason grounds for such refusal, because arguments raised in the application are of a controversial nature and critical of the courts apathy to, and profit from, practices in conflict with natural law.

(12) Judges relation to the media. Judges should respect the media‟s role in the courts, and should provide the public with information concerning the cases that are dealt with by the courts.

Judge Arntzen does not appear to have provided the media with information about the complainants application to his court. It is suspected that one of the motivations behind the Justice‟s refusal to provide the complainant with a case number and a fair hearing is to deliberately avoid the court providing the media with information concerning the complainants application to the court; and that such motivations relate to the Judge‟s lack of impartiality, independence, integrity and commitment to equality and collegial intervention.

[D] ECHR: Rule of law requires adequately Precise and Accessible Legislation: In Lithgow & others v United Kingdom14, the European Court of Human Rights held that the rule of law requires provisions of legislation to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law: “As regards the phrase "subject to the conditions provided for by law”, it requires in the first place the existence of and compliance with adequately accessible and sufficiently precise domestic legal provisions (see, amongst other authorities, the alone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 31-33, paras. 66-68).”

[E] Controversial Arguments in Complainants Applications 12

Paralegal Certificate & Diplomate: Lara Johnstone Download: http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/060111_paralegal-lj Read: http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/060111_paralegal-lj?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage 13 Robert McBride was a member of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the South African Liberation Struggle, and was convicted for the bombing of Magoo's Bar / “Why Not” Restaurant in Durban, which killed 3 and injured 69 in 1986. He applied for and was granted amnesty for this and other militant actions taken during his time with MK by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Citizen newspaper was subsequently found guilty of defaming McBride by calling him a murderer (McBride argued his crimes had been forgiven and erased by the TRC) and appealed to the Concourt. Johnstone‟s Amicus dealt with evidence for how and why South Africas Truth and Reconciliation Hearings were not a sincere investigation as to the root ecological and demographic (overpopulation youth bulge) cause of Apartheid or current SA political violence; and offered the court parties an opportunity to correct the error of SA‟s TRC Fraud by addressing its errors so that true and sincere reconciliation could occur. Even though Johnstone‟s application was accepted by the Concourt and filed, both McBride and the SA media refused the offer to address the evidence of ecological causes of SA‟s apartheid violence and the consequence TRC Fraud, and correct the error; since both McBride (the ANC) and the media socio-politically and financially benefit from SA‟s TRC Fraud and current violence. 14 Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html

29/05/12 Complaint Against Judge Wenche E Arntzen norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr


“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle “There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world.” – Thomas Jefferson

Judge Arntzen lacks the Masculine (Reason & Logic) Security Independence demonstrated in Thomas Jeffersons and Aristotle‟s quotes towards controversial issues as detailed in complainant‟s application to her court.

[1] Norway’s endorsement of Political Psychiatry April 15, 2012 Application to Oslo District Court: Amicus Curiae: Affidavit: [26] HABEUS MENTEM :: THE RIGHT TO LEGAL SANITY In Aldous Huxley‟s A Brave New World Revisited he describes the insidious conspiracy to manipulate the masses by propaganda and lies, so as to make them controllable under the “steadily increasing pressures of over-population and of the over-organization imposed by growing numbers and advancing technology”: It is perfectly possible for a man to be out of prison, and yet not free -- to be under no physical constraint and yet to be a psychological captive, compelled to think, feel and act as the representatives of the national State, or of some private interest within the nation, want him to think, feel and act. There will never be such a thing as a writ of habeas mentem; for no sheriff or jailer can bring an illegally imprisoned mind into court, and no person whose mind had been made captive by the methods outlined in earlier articles would be in a position to complain of his captivity. The nature of psychological compulsion is such that those who act under constraint remain under the impression that they are acting on their own initiative. The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him, the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. That he is not free is apparent only to other people. His servitude is strictly objective. The problem – of course – for those who partake in this insidious conspiracy is that ultimately the propagandists begin to believe their own propaganda. [27] Marketing of Madness: The Myth of Mental Illness Experts (21:04)15 „There is no such thing as mental illness. Psychiatric diagnosis of „mental disorders‟ is just a way of stigmatising behaviour that society does not want to live with. Psychiatry thrives on coercion and is replacing religion as a form of social control.‟ - Dr. Thomas Szasz “Biological psychology/psychiatry is a total perversion of medicine and science, and a fraud.” Neurologist Fred Baughman, The ADHD Fraud: How Psychiatry Makes "Patients" of Normal Children. “Going to a psychiatrist has become one of the most dangerous things a person can do.” - Peter Breggin, MD; Toxic Psychiatry “There is no such thing as a mental disorder. A mental disorder is whatever someone says it is, and if the person saying "This is a mental disorder", has enough power and influence, then people believe 'Oh, that is a mental disorder'.” - Dr. Paula Caplan, Harvard “The entire enterprise of defining mental disorder is pointless, at least in so far as the goal is to allow us to recognize „genuine‟ or „true‟ disorders” - Dr. Mary Boyle, Schizophrenia: A Scientific Delusion? 15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJARs_uU7q0

29/05/12 Complaint Against Judge Wenche E Arntzen norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr


“DSM is a book of tentatively assembled agreements. Agreements don‟t always make sense, nor do they always reflect reality. You can have agreements among experts without validity. Even if you could find four people who agreed that the earth is flat, that the moon is made of green cheese, that smoking cigarettes poses no health risks, or that politicians are never corrupt, such agreements do not establish truth.” – Herb Kutchins and Stuart Kirk: Making us Crazy: DSM: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental Disorders “To admit the central role of value judgments and cultural norms [in the creation of the DSM] is to give the whole game away. The DSM has to be seen as reliable and valid, or the whole enterprise of medical psychiatry collapses.” -- Lucy Johnstone, The Users and Abusers of Psychiatry “[Alleged Mental Disorders] are based on a grab-bag of checklists for disorders that are published in a book called the DSM; which is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. There are no statistics in this book, by the way. That just makes it sound more scientific.” -- Dr Margaret Hagen, Professor of Psychology, Boston University, Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice. Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice, Margaret A. Hagen, Ph.D | The Second Sin, Thomas Szasz | Coercion as Cure: A Critical History of Psychiatry, Thomas Szasz | Insanity: The Idea and its Consequences, Thomas Szasz | Law, Liberty and Psychiatry, Thomas Szasz | A Lexicon of Lunacy: Metaphoric Malady, Moral Responsibility and Psychiatry, Thomas Szasz | Liberation by Oppression: A Comparative Study of Slavery and Psychiatry, Thomas Szasz | The Age of Madness: The history of Involuntary Mental Hospitalization, Thomas Szasz | The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement, Thomas Szasz | The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct, Thomas Szasz | The Myth of Psychotherapy, Thomas Szasz | Psychiatry: The Science of Lies, Thomas Szasz | The Therapeutic State: Psychiatry in the Mirror of Current Events, Thomas Szasz | The ADHD Fraud: How Psychiatry Makes "Patients" of Normal Children, Fred A. Bauchmann, Jr, MD | Toxic Psychiatry, Peter Breggin, MD | They Say You're Crazy: How the Worlds Most Powerful Psychiatrists Decide Who's Normal, Paula J. Caplan Ph.D | Schizophrenia: A Scientific Delusion, Mary Boyle | Making us Crazy: DSM: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental Disorders, Herb Kutchins & Stuart A Kirk | Users and Abusers of Psychiatry: A Critical Look at Traditional Psychiatric Practice, Lucy Johnstone [28] NORWAYS HISTORY OF POLITICAL PSYCHIATRY An analysis by SINTEF (research organisation) in 1996, showed that about 45 percent of all psychiatric hospitalisations in Norwegian psychiatric clinics, are coercive. In other EU countries coercive institutionalization is between 5-15 percent. -- Fampo, Norway www.fampo.info Knut Hamsen: Author, winner of Nobel Prize in Literature in 1920: The Growth of the Soil. Charged with treason for his writings in support of Hitler, but then declared to be mentally impaired by psychiatrists to avoid Norway giving him a treason trial. Arnold Juklerod: Institutionalized at Gaustad in 1971, as “paranoid schizophrenic,” after exposing corruption in the Education Dept. His alleged “unchangeable paranoid false ideas” were subsequently proven true, but Norwegian psychiatrists refused to delete his „paranoid schizophrenia‟ diagnosis. Synnove Fjellbakk Tafto: A diplomat and jurist was labelled mentally ill and institutionalized after exposing massive corruption in the Norwegian Foreign Service. Author: Skjoldmoysagaen. Kare Torvholm & Oddmar Remoy: Dr. Bjorn Martin Aasen, justified their institutionalization because: "he belongs to a civil network with both local, national, & international connections, 29/05/12 Complaint Against Judge Wenche E Arntzen norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr


which purpose is to disclose criminal things...; which fulfills their mental disorder requirements'... Anders Breivik: Does Breivik's 22/7 acts expose the corruption of Norway's Immigration policies? Is Breivik qualified to fulfil Norways mental disorder requirements? Does Breivik “belong to a civil network with both local, national, & international connections, with the purpose to disclose criminal things”?

[2] Masculine Insecurity Human Farming for Profit Kaffir Legal Matrix: 15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court: Amicus Curiae: Affidavit: [3](4) My Guerrilla Lawfare Worldview: The Paradox of the Masculine Insecurity Human Farming16 Kaffir17 Matrix Court: Radical Transparency Problem Solving is to the Masculine Insecurity Kaffir Matrix Court; what Martin Luther or Galileo Galilei were to the Catholic Church. The Kaffir Matrix Court system is founded on „Kaffir Legislation‟: Inalienable Right to Breed and Vote: Kaffir Law/Legislation provides citizens with the Inalienable „Right to Breed‟ and „Right to Vote‟, but demands that Citizens need a Licence to Own a Gun, a Licence to Drive a Car, a Licence to Practice Law, a television licence, a credit licence, a licence to earn a living, a university exemption licence, a licence to fish, a licence to hunt, a liquor licence, a business licence, a marriage licence, etc, etc. (i) The $64,000 question: Why does the Masculine Insecurity Human Farming Kaffir Legal Matrix not require citizens to voting18 or breeding licences??? (ii) Kaffir Legislation covers up that an „Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control policy + No Social Welfare policies or practices provides for an equilibrium carrying capacity; whereas Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control within a welfare state, results in Runaway Growth, and ultimately greater misery, poverty and war 19. (iii) Kaffir Legislation covers up that the Inalienable Right to Vote, or Universal Suffrage for the Ignorant is the road to centralisation of power and tyranny.20 [22] The Applicant is of the view that the main application raises novel questions which are crucial for the future credibility of Western Civilisation‟s Masculine Insecurity Human Farming21 Kaffir22 Legal Matrix conceptualisation of the rule of law and the principle of legality.

16

Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement: http://youtu.be/gHAnrXCvavc Radical Honoursty Definitions of Kaffir are not Racial, but Behavioural: For Example: * ‘Kaffir Behaviour’: Cultural Beliefs and Procreation Behaviour Definition: Individuals who either independently or as a result of their cultural value systems, are incapable of, or unwilling to, practice sexual restraint and procreation responsibility; who consequently breed cockroach-prolifically without personal financial or psychological responsibility to, or emotional concern for, their offspring; and/or who abuse women and children as sexual or economic slaves procreated for such purpose; and/or whose cultural ideal of manhood endorses non-consensual sex (rape) as their sexual slavery entitlement, etc. * ‘Kaffir Etymology’: Original Etymological Definition for „Kaffir‟: The word kāfir is the active participle of the Semitic root K-F-R “to cover”. As a preIslamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting; as they till the earth and “cover up” the seeds; which is why earth tillers are referred to as “Kuffar.” Thus, the word kāfir implies the meaning “a person who hides or covers”; To conceal, deny, hide or cover the truth. 18 “In order to achieve this goal [of world domination], we must introduce [the right to vote] universal suffrage beforehand, without distinctions of class and wealth. Then the masses of people will decide everything; and since it [universal suffrage] is controlled by us we will achieve through it the absolute majority, which we could never achieve if only the educated and possessing classes had the vote.” -- Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 10th Sitting, Wallstein Pub. House, ISBN 3-89244-191-x, p. 60 19 From Shortage to Longage: Forty Years in the Population Vineyards, by Garrett Hardin, Population and Environment, Vol. 12, No. 3. Spring 1991 http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_from_shortage_to_longage.html 20 “In order to achieve this goal [of world domination], we must introduce [the right to vote] universal suffrage beforehand, without distinctions of class and wealth. Then the masses of people will decide everything; and since it [universal suffrage] is controlled by us we will achieve through it the absolute majority, which we could never achieve if only the educated and possessing classes had the vote.” -- Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 10th Sitting, Wallstein Pub. House, ISBN 3-89244-191-x, p. 60 21 Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement: http://youtu.be/gHAnrXCvavc 22 Radical Honoursty Definitions of Kaffir are not Racial, but Behavioural: For Example: * ‘Kaffir Behaviour’: Cultural Beliefs and Procreation Behaviour Definition: Individuals who either independently or as a result of their cultural value systems, are incapable of, or unwilling to, practice sexual restraint and procreation responsibility; who consequently breed cockroach-prolifically without personal financial or psychological responsibility to, or emotional concern for, their offspring; and/or who abuse women and children as sexual or economic slaves procreated for such purpose; and/or whose cultural ideal of manhood endorses non-consensual sex (rape) as their sexual slavery entitlement, etc. 17

29/05/12 Complaint Against Judge Wenche E Arntzen norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr


[3] Norwegian Goverments Endorsement for ANC’s Terrorism & Breeding War: 15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court: Amicus Curiae: Affidavit: [39-75] Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee: A Product of (A) European Masculine Insecurity Phallic Enhanced Colonialism and (B) African and Liberal Masculine Insecurity AntiApartheid Movement‟s „Operation Production‟ Breeding War [44-50] The Competitive Exclusion Principle (Apartheid) was an Act of Political Just War Self Defense to Tragedy of the Breeding War – Act of War – African Commons Exponential Population Growth: [51-54] Apartheid Inconvenient Truths Masculine Insecurity Liberals and Anti-Apartheid Movement Lack the Honour to Confront: [55-58] Masculine Insecurity Liberal Europe‟s Endorsement of African Masculine Insecurity AntiApartheid Movement‟s „Operation Production‟ Breeding War: [59-75] Masculine Insecurity Liberal Europe‟s Endorsement of African Masculine Insecurity AntiApartheid Movement‟s Parasite Leeching TRC Fraud Social Contract:

Respectfully Submitted | Respektfullt Sendt

Lara Johnstone Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/ Annexures: [A] SA Constitutional Court Order by the Chief Justice in CCT 23-10 on 03 May 2010 [C] 15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court to proceed as an Amicus Curiae

* ‘Kaffir Etymology’: Original Etymological Definition for „Kaffir‟: The word kāfir is the active participle of the Semitic root K-F-R “to cover”. As a preIslamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting; as they till the earth and “cover up” the seeds; which is why earth tillers are referred to as “Kuffar.” Thus, the word kāfir implies the meaning “a person who hides or covers”; To conceal, deny, hide or cover the truth.

29/05/12 Complaint Against Judge Wenche E Arntzen norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

12-10-23: Tilsynsutvalget: 72-12: Complaint: Judge Wenche Arntzen  

12-10-23: Tilsynsutvalget: 72-12: Complaint: Judge Wenche Arntzen

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you