12-07-02: Adv For: Disc. Comm: Hordaland & Sogn

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 02 July 2012

Norsk Advokatforeningen Disciplinary Committee for Hordaland and Sogn circuits Bjarte Kristian Døssland Advokatfirma Handeland Døssland & Co AS bjarte.dossland@borgen.no

Anette Vangsnes Askevold Advokatfirma Alvheim og Hansen ANS ava@alvheim-hansen.no

Inger Hygen Flostrand Kluge Advokatfirma DA inger.hygen.flostrand@kluge.no

Alf-Erik Jentoft AdvokatPartner ANS alf-erik.jentoft@advokatpartner.no

Marte Røv Statoil ASA marrov@statoil.com

Even Øistensen AdvokatCompagniet DA eoi@advokatene.net

Arild Christian Dyngeland Advokatfirma Alvheim og Hansen ANS dyngeland@alvheim-hansen.no

CC: Disciplinary Complaints: The Norwegian Bar Association (post@advokatforeningen.no)

Dear Hordaland and Sogn Circuit Disciplinary Committee Members,

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)

02/07/12 NorsK AdvFor: DiscComm: Legal Interest norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

Request Clarity Re: Disciplinary Committee’s ‘Legal Interest’ Definition ITO Request Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Complaints filed against Attorneys for Defendant (4) and Victims Families (166) in Norway v. Breivik matter: Violation of: 2.1 (Independence), 2.2 (Honesty), 2.4 (Multiculti Legal Respect) & 4,1 (Rule of Law Conduct) of CCBE Code of Ethics (Norwegian translation)2

Overview: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Complaints to Bar Association Refused for Failure of „Legal Interest‟ Bar Assoc. Refers „Legal Interest‟ Definition Issue to Disciplinary Committee Bar Associations „Legal Interest‟ Definition Provided Legal Interest Facts Not In Dispute Statutes and Legal Principles Cited Questions Re: Disciplinary Committee‟s „Legal Interest‟ Definition ITO Request Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law):

[I] Complaints to Bar Association Refused for Failure of ‘Legal Interest’ Between 13 and 17 June 2012 I filed 170 complaints (4 withdrawn & submitted to Disciplinary Board3) to the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee4 against Attorneys for the Defence (4) and Victims Families (162) in the Norway v. Breivik matter.

Initially the Bar Association refused to accept my complaints because, among others, they said I lacked „legal interest‟.

On 26 June 2012, I submitted a Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law), to the Bar Association, requesting them to answer the following questions justifying their „legal interest‟ refusal of my complaints: [A] Does the Bar Association endorse the European Court of Human Rights (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom5) principle that every individual who files a legal application to a Norwegian Court has a right to a timeous and precise written response informing them whether their application has been accepted, or if denied, reasons for such denial, or to inform the individual of additional information required before the complaint can be accepted?

[B] If so, if or when any Judge refuses to provide any applicant in any court proceeding that any Norwegian Lawyer is a participant in, with such prompt written response, it is the duty of honourable and ethical Lawyers to uphold the respect for impartial court due process proceedings to object to, and expose such discrimatory corrupt practices being practiced by a Norwegian Magistrate or Judge?

[C] In consideration for [A] and [B], could the Bar Association be detailed specific about how and why it alleges that my complaints do not meet the Bar Association‟s „legal interest requirement‟?

2

http://www.advokatforeningen.no/Etiske-regler/Internasjonale-regler/CCBEs-etiske-regler-norsk/ http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/search/label/Advokat%20Disciplinary%20Board http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/search/label/Norske%20AdvFor%3A%20Disiplin%C3%A6rnemnden 5 Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html 3 4

02/07/12 NorsK AdvFor: DiscComm: Legal Interest norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

[D] Is the Bar Association‟s „Legal Interest‟ Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of the Human-Farming-EcoSuicide-Kaffir-Legal-Matrix?: Whether the Bar Association‟s decision-making to allege that my complaint did not meet the „Bar Association‟s „legal interest requirement‟ had anything to do with silencing, suppressing or obstructing my legal applications to the court in this matter expoing the Human Farming6 Kaffir7 Legal Matrix: the Iron Mountain8 „War is a Racket9 Military Industrial Complex‟s centralisation of power and tyranny10, founded on Kaffir Law/Legislation which provides citizens with the Inalienable Eco-Suicide „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, a Marxist/Capitalist Traitor Hunting licence, etc, etc.

[D] Is the Bar Association‟s „Legal Interest‟ Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of Norway‟s endorsement of the Legal Establishment‟s use of Whores of the Court Psychiatrists for the purposes of White Supremacy cultural supremacy and social control; ignoring the reality their „Whores of the Court‟ Bullshit the public and the court with “psychobabble with scientific foundations equal to horoscope charts… the science behind it all is nonexistent”?

[II] Bar Assoc. Refers ‘Legal Interest’ Definition Issue to Disciplinary Committee: On 29 June 2012 the Bar Association response on the issue of „legal interest‟ to justify their refusal to accept my complaints was to avoid answering the questions, stating that those questions could only be answered by the Disciplinary Committee/s.

We refer to your e-mail below, and your e-mail of June 26.

As written in our reply to you dated June 22, all relevant information regarding the requirement of legal interest in accordance with the Disciplinary Committee's Regulations § 3 has been provided to you.

The Norwegian Bar Association cannot answer your many questions in this regard. It is the Disciplinary Committee that considers complaints against our members, and thus also considers whether or not the complainant has legal interest or not. Our information to you in this regard is based on the practice from the Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Board.

We would nevertheless like to point out that the Disciplinary Committee is not a court; it is a body within the Norwegian Bar Association.

As to your question on the “Complaints Environmental Principles”, we do not have any such principles. We thus kindly ask you to follow the complaint procedure described to you in our previous e-mails. You complaints will not be dealt with by the Disciplinary Committee as long as they are sent by e-mail.

As all relevant information has been send to you in regards to the above mentioned, we will not reply to further e-mails from you on this same matter.

6

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.

8 Report from Iron Mountain: On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace http://www.teachpeace.com/Report_from_Iron_Mountain.pdf 9 War is a Racket, by USMC General Smedley Bulter http://warisaracket.org/dedication.html 10 “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 7

02/07/12 NorsK AdvFor: DiscComm: Legal Interest norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

[III] Bar Associations ‘Legal Interest’ Definition Provided: Disciplinary Committee Regulations § 3: Right of complaint11: Anyone whose complaint is based on a legal interest is entitled to file a complaint. In practice this means that the attorney‟s client has a right to complain. A complaint may be rejected if it is obviously baseless. Complaints regarding the other party‟s attorney may also be filed.

Complaints regarding the other party‟s attorney are often acquitted if it is obvious that the attorney has carried out the engagement within the framework of the regular performance of functions in his or her client‟s interest. It is not unusual that one party is displeased with the other party‟s conduct, especially if the case is emotionally stressful for the parties involved.

[IV] Legal Interest Facts Not In Dispute: [1]

[2]

30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court: Habeus Mentem: 1.

On 30 November 2011, complainant filed an Application12 to the Oslo District Court: Application for a [I] writ of Habeus Mentem on behalf of Anders Breivik psychocultural integrity right to a free and fair trial; and [II] writ of Certiorari/Review of the Psychiatric Evaluation Report of Psychiatrists: Synne Serheim and Torgeir Husby as to the Mens Rea political necessity criminal liability of Anders Breivik terrorist acts, on 22 July 2011.

2.

On 15 December 2012 complainant informed the court13 that: “Please could you confirm: (1) The date my application is to be submitted to Judge Opsahl, or the relevant Judge, for their consideration. (2) The date the said Judge intends to provide me with their ruling on the matter.”

3.

There has been no response from the Clerk of the Court. Complainant imagines that the Judge has ordered the Clerk to ignore the application. Refusal to respond to an application implies that the application is being denied, and that the applicant is unworthy of a transparent due process response14.

4.

On 30 May 2012 a complaint was filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges15 against Judge Opsahl for failure to provide the complainant with a transparent due process response16; which was a violation of their CCBE Ethical Duties to the court and all applicants to courts in all court disputes.

15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court: Amicus Curiae: 1.

On 15 April 2012, Complainant filed an Application17 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

11

http://www.advokatenhjelperdeg.no/artikler/complaint-against-an-attorny/ http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2011/12/oslo-district-court-norway-v-breivik.html http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2011/12/notice-to-oslo-court-request-date-judge.html 14 [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.

15 http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/search/label/DA%3A%20Sec.%20Supv.%20Comm.%20for%20Judges 16 [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.

17 http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/no-v-breivik-ecofeminist-application-to.html 12 13

02/07/12 NorsK AdvFor: DiscComm: Legal Interest norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

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.

[3]

2.

On 26 April 2012, Complainant informed the court18 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. Complainant imagines that the Judge has ordered the Clerk to ignore the application. Refusal to respond to an application implies that the application is being denied, and that the applicant is unworthy of a transparent due process response19.

4.

On 30 May 2012 a complaint was filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges20 against Judge Arntzen for failure to provide the complainant with a transparent due process response21; which was a violation of their CCBE Ethical Duties to the court and all applicants to courts in all court disputes.

10 May 2012 Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review & Declaratory Orders: 1.

On 10 May 2012, Complainant filed an Application22 to the Norway Supreme Court: Application (1) to be admitted as a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee; (2) for An Order demanding the Norwegian Ministry of Culture to act in accordance to European Court of Human Rights ruling in Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom, and clarify in adequately accessible and sufficiently precise statement; whether Norway is (A) a ‘Children of the Rainbow’23 State legally committed to Multiculturalism, providing all cultures their right to invoke cultural law and hence granting the Applicant her rights to invoke Radical Honoursty cultural law; or (B) a Monocultural Indigenous European Supremacy Legal Hegemonic State, and that the Labour Party Immigration policy is a tactic to maintain their grip on power, by importing Non-Western immigrants as Labour Party vote-fodder; (3) to Review the Oslo District Court failure to act in accordance of due process to a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee Applicant member of the Radical Honesty culture.

2.

On 11 May 2012 complainant requested from Norway Supreme Court Officials: Mr. Svein Andersen / Mr. Kjersti Ruud: “Could you kindly clarify when the Registrar shall issue a Case Number; or whether you require additional documentation or information?”

18

http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/update-ecofeminist-applic-to-oslo-court.html [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.

20 http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/search/label/DA%3A%20Sec.%20Supv.%20Comm.%20for%20Judges 21 [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.

22 http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/ecofeminists-deep-green-ecology.html 23 Europost: Children of the Rainbow against Anders Breivik http://www.europost.bg/article?id=4409 19

02/07/12 NorsK AdvFor: DiscComm: Legal Interest norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

3.

On 15 May 2012, Kjersti Buun Nygaard responded24 with: “Reference is made to your emails regarding the above issue. Please be advised 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. Further inquiries from you regarding the above issue can not be expected to be answered.”

4.

On 15 May 2012, complainant responded25 with: (I) Error in Supreme Court: Deputy Secretary General: Kjersti Buun Nygaard Response to SHARP Application to Supreme Court for Declaratory Orders and Review of Oslo District Court’s Decisions.

5.

On 17 May 2012, complainant filed an Environmental Crime Complaint to Interpol26, via Norway Police; Charges: Obstruction of Environmental & Indigenous Rights Justice Committed by Chief Justice Tore Schei & Dep. Sec. Gen: Kjersti Nygaard.

6.

On 30 May 2012 a complaint was filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges27 against Chief Justice Schei for failure to provide the complainant with a transparent due process response28; which was a violation of their CCBE Ethical Duties to the court and all applicants to courts in all court disputes.

[V] Statutes and Legal Principles Cited: ECHR: Rule of law requires adequately Precise and Accessible Legislation: In Lithgow & others v United Kingdom29, 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).”

Act on the Right of Access to Documents in Public Administration (the Act). § 28 Disclosure requirement30: Access can be demanded in writing or orally. Access to information must relate to a specific cause or a reasonable extent, matters of a particular species. This does not apply when it is demanded access to a journal or similar registry.

Environmental Public31 When products and activities that may affect the environment and health, we have the right to more information than usual, both from private and public. Check how you can go to the manufacturer, importer, dealer, municipal or a private company to get the information you are looking for.

24

http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/no-supreme-crt-dep-sec-gen-kjersti-buun.html http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/no-supreme-crt-dep-sec-gen-kjersti-buun.html http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/16-may-ecofeminist-death-battalion.html 27 http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/search/label/DA%3A%20Sec.%20Supv.%20Comm.%20for%20Judges 28 [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 Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html 30 http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-20060519-016.html#28 31 http://ezcust0003.web1.dedicated99.no.webdeal.no/offentlighet_user/Miljoeoffentlighet 25 26

02/07/12 NorsK AdvFor: DiscComm: Legal Interest norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

LOV 2003-05-09 nr 31: Act concerning the right to env. Info. and public participation in decision-making processes relating to the environment (environmental law).32 § 10 The right to environmental information held by a public body33 (1) Everyone has the right to obtain environmental information from a public body, so framt information provided to the competent body or body of knowledge covered by the obligation under § § 8 or 9, and it is not exempt from the information right under this Act. (2) Environmental information is the competent authority when the information: a) is in the public authority itself, or b) held by a natural or legal person on behalf of the public authority.

(3) A request for environmental information may be rejected if it is too generally formulated or does not provide sufficient basis to identify the claim. Before a claim is rejected, the applicant shall be given reasonable assistance to formulate the request in such a way that it can be treated.

(4) If the requirements for access aimed at the wrong agency, it shall as soon as possible to forward the claim to the right authority or guidance as to which public bodies are believed to have information.

[VI] Questions Re: Disciplinary Committee’s ‘Legal Interest’ Definition ITO Request Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law): [A] Does the Bar Association endorse the European Court of Human Rights (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom34) principle that every individual who files a legal application to a Norwegian Court has a right to a timeous and precise written response informing them whether their application has been accepted, or if denied, reasons for such denial, or to inform the individual of additional information required before the complaint can be accepted?

[B] If so, if or when any Judge refuses to provide any applicant in any court proceeding that any Norwegian Lawyer is a participant in, with such prompt written response, it is the duty of honourable and ethical Lawyers to uphold the respect for impartial court due process proceedings to object to, and expose such discrimatory corrupt practices being practiced by a Norwegian Magistrate or Judge?

If my complaints do not meet your Disciplinary Committee‟s definition of „legal interest requirement‟: [C] In consideration for [A] and [B], could the Bar Association be detailed specific about how and why it alleges that my complaints do not meet the Bar Association‟s „legal interest requirement‟?

32

http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-20030509-031.html#10 http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-20030509-031.html#10 34 Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html 33

02/07/12 NorsK AdvFor: DiscComm: Legal Interest norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

[D] Is the Bar Association‟s „Legal Interest‟ Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of the Human-Farming-EcoSuicide-Kaffir-Legal-Matrix?: Whether the Bar Association‟s decision-making to allege that my complaint did not meet the „Bar Association‟s „legal interest requirement‟ had anything to do with silencing, suppressing or obstructing my legal applications to the court in this matter expoing the Human 37 38 Farming35 Kaffir36 Legal Matrix: the Iron Mountain „War is a Racket Military Industrial Complex‟s centralisation of power and tyranny 39, founded on Kaffir Law/Legislation which provides citizens with the Inalienable Eco-Suicide „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, a Marxist/Capitalist Traitor Hunting licence, etc, etc.

[D] Is the Bar Association‟s „Legal Interest‟ Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of Norway‟s endorsement of the Legal Establishment‟s use of Whores of the Court Psychiatrists for the purposes of White Supremacy cultural supremacy and social control; ignoring the reality their „Whores of the Court‟ Bullshit the public and the court with “psychobabble with scientific foundations equal to horoscope charts… the science behind it all is nonexistent”?

Respectfully Submitted

Lara Johnstone Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/

35

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.

37 Report from Iron Mountain: On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace http://www.teachpeace.com/Report_from_Iron_Mountain.pdf 38 War is a Racket, by USMC General Smedley Bulter http://warisaracket.org/dedication.html 39 “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 36

02/07/12 NorsK AdvFor: DiscComm: Legal Interest norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

From: Advokatforeningen [mailto:post@advokatforeningen.no] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 12:43 PM To: Lara Subject: RE: Den Norske Advokatforening: Berit Reiss-Andersen: Req for Env. & Health Info ITO S.28 and S.10

Lara Johnstone, We refer to your e-mail below, and your e-mail of June 26.

As written in our reply to you dated June 22, all relevant information regarding the requirement of legal interest in accordance with the Disciplinary Committee's Regulations § 3 has been provided to you.

The Norwegian Bar Association cannot answer your many questions in this regard. It is the Disciplinary Committee that considers complaints against our members, and thus also considers whether or not the complainant has legal interest or not. Our information to you in this regard is based on the practice from the Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Board.

We would nevertheless like to point out that the Disciplinary Committee is not a court; it is a body within the Norwegian Bar Association.

As to your question on the “Complaints Environmental Principles”, we do not have any such principles. We thus kindly ask you to follow the complaint procedure described to you in our previous e-mails. You complaints will not be dealt with by the Disciplinary Committee as long as they are sent by e-mail.

As all relevant information has been send to you in regards to the above mentioned, we will not reply to further emails from you on this same matter.

Regards, The Norwegian Bar Association

Fra: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sendt: 26. juni 2012 15:58 Til: Advokatforeningen Emne: RE: Den Norske Advokatforening: Berit Reiss-Andersen: Req for Env. & Health Info ITO S.28 and S.10 Sec./Exec. Officer: Inger-Johanna Hammer Comm: Baard Amundsen The Norwegian Bar Association | Den Norske Advokatforening Juristenes Hus Kristian Augusts gate 9, 0164 Oslo Tel: 22 03 50 50 | Fax: 22 11 53 25 E: ijh@advokatforeningen.no, ba@advokatforeningen.no CC: Norway v. Breivik Defence (4) & Victims Family Attorneys (166) Dear Ms. Hammer, I have not yet received any response to my request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) in terms of the Bar Association's Legal Interest and Complaints policies.

Hence I see no justified reasons for your attempts to obstruct the complaints already filed, except in regards to your criticism as to whether the relevant lawyers were members of the Advokat Foreningen or not.

I have searched your database and it appears the following four attorneys are not members of the Advokat Foreningen, and hence I have submitted their amended complaints directly to the Disciplinary Board and their complaints can consequently be withdrawn from my 170 complaints to the Advokat Foreningen Disciplinary Committee.

02/07/12 NorsK AdvFor: DiscComm: Legal Interest norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

They are: CC: Fagforbundet M.N.B.A: Anne-Gry Rønning-Aaby CC: Advokatene Borgergaten: Borghild Fjeld Gylvik CC: Advokathuset Feydt & Hamborgstrøm DA: Arne Seland CC: Advokatene Klanderud Klanderud Bergby: Ole Klanderud All other complaints filed with your Disciplinary Committee remain.

Respectfully Submitted Lara Johnstone Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/

From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 2:04 PM To: 'Inger Johanne Hammer'; 'Baard Amundsen' Cc: NO: Lippestad (tord@advokatlippestad.no); Crt: Victims: Siv Hallgren (siv.hallgren@elden.no); Crt: Victims: Frode Elgesem (elg@thommessen.no); Crt: Victims: Mette Yvonne Larsen (mette.larsen@advokatstabell.no) Subject: RE: Den Norske Advokatforening: Berit Reiss-Andersen: Req for Env. & Health Info ITO S.28 and S.10 Sec./Exec. Officer: Inger-Johanna Hammer Comm: Baard Amundsen The Norwegian Bar Association | Den Norske Advokatforening Juristenes Hus Kristian Augusts gate 9, 0164 Oslo Tel: 22 03 50 50 | Fax: 22 11 53 25 E: ijh@advokatforeningen.no, ba@advokatforeningen.no Dear Ms. Hammer, CC: Norway v. Breivik Defence (4) & Victims Family Attorneys (166) Many thanks for your email sent Friday, June 22, 2012 10:03 AM. My apologies. Last time I contacted the Norwegian Bar Association, they kindly informed me whether the individual was a Bar Association member or not. I thought this was a service you provide; but clearly I am mistaken. I imagine the majority of complaints filed are member of your Bar Association; and you are simply stalling for time to obstruct the procedure of addressing my complaints. Its very common masculine insecurity (reason and logic) legal behaviour when a lawyer does not want to address the facts in any individuals complaint. Nevertheless I shall do the search and confirm which are members of the Bar Association.

Re: Legal Interest & Bar Association Complaints Policy: You have not answered my request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) in terms of the Bar Association's Legal Interest and Complaints policies: I repeat: [2] The Bar Association 'Legal Interest' Decision Making Justifications: [A] Does the Bar Association endorse the European Court of Human Rights (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom) principle that every individual who files a legal application to a Norwegian Court has a right to a timeous and precise

02/07/12 NorsK AdvFor: DiscComm: Legal Interest norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

written response informing them whether their application has been accepted, or if denied, reasons for such denial, or to inform the individual of additional information required before the complaint can be accepted?

[B] If so, if or when any Judge refuses to provide any applicant in any court proceeding that any Norwegian Lawyer is a participant in, with such prompt written response, it is the duty of honourable and ethical Lawyers to uphold the respect for impartial court due process proceedings to object to, and expose such discrimatory corrupt practices being practiced by a Norwegian Magistrate or Judge?

[C] In consideration for [A] and [B], could the Bar Association be detailed specific about how and why it alleges that my complaints do not meet the Bar Association's 'legal interest requirement'?

[D] Is the Bar Association's 'Legal Interest' Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of the HumanFarming-EcoSuicide-Kaffir-Legal-Matrix?: Whether the Bar Association's decision-making to allege that my complaint did not meet the 'Bar Association's 'legal interest requirement' had anything to do with silencing, suppressing or obstructing my legal applications to the court in this matter expoing the Human Farming Kaffir Legal Matrix: the Iron Mountain 'War is a Racket Military Industrial Complex's centralisation of power and tyranny , founded on Kaffir Law/Legislation which provides citizens with the Inalienable Eco-Suicide '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, a Marxist/Capitalist Traitor Hunting licence, etc, etc.

[D] Is the Bar Association's 'Legal Interest' Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of Norway's endorsement of the Legal Establishment's use of Whores of the Court Psychiatrists for the purposes of White Supremacy cultural supremacy and social control; ignoring the reality their 'Whores of the Court' Bullshit the public and the court with "psychobabble with scientific foundations equal to horoscope charts. the science behind it all is nonexistent"?

[3] The Bar Association Environmental Principles Decision-Making [1] Please provide The Bar Association Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for demanding complainants waste paper, ink and non-renewable transporation resources by printing, signing and mailing complaints to the Bar Association; and refusing digitally signed complaints submitted by email, which are much more beneficial to the environment, and are exact environmentally digital copies of print versions?

[2] Please provide The Bar Association Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for printed complaints; when even third world goverments and Bar Associations environmental policies allow courts and organisations to accept email complaints?

ECHR: Rule of law requires adequately Precise and Accessible Legislation: In Lithgow & others v United Kingdom, 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)."

Conclusion Repeated: If an individual files a legal application to a Norwegian Court; does the Bar Association support the due process principles; that 1. such an individual has a right to a prompt and clear written response from the Court informing the applicant their legal application has been accepted or if not, whether further information is required or what is required from the individual for such legal application to be accepted

02/07/12 NorsK AdvFor: DiscComm: Legal Interest norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

2.

When any legal applicant is denied such due process written response by the court; it is the honourable duty of all legal parties involved in the matter to uphold the respect for due process and the law, by demanding the Judge provide the applicant with a clear and written response to their application.

We live on a finite resource planet and not even Bar Associations have the right to believe that resources are infinite and to demand 'complaints' procedures that require complainants to waste scarce resources, when alternative procedures exist that are more environmentally resource friendly.

Respectfully Submitted Lara Johnstone Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/

From: Inger Johanne Hammer [mailto:ijh@advokatforeningen.no] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 10:03 AM To: Lara Subject: RE: Den Norske Advokatforening: Berit Reiss-Andersen: Req for Env. & Health Info ITO S.28 and S.10

Lara Johnstone, With reference to your e-mail below, and your previous 170 complaints send the Norwegian Bar Association's Disciplinary Committee last week.

Which lawyers that are members of the Norwegian Bar Association, can be found on the members list at the associations' website. We refer you to that list, where you can search up whether a lawyer is a member or not; http://www.advokatforeningen.no/Sok/Sok-i-medlemslisten/ On your question regarding legal interest, we refer you to the Disciplinary Committee's Regulations § 3 and to our email of June 19th where all relevant information has been provided. Should you have any questions in regards to the complaints system, you can find further information under this link http://www.advokatenhjelperdeg.no/artikler/complaint-against-an-attorny/ As we already have informed you about, your potential complaints must be send by ordinary mail due to the fact that the Norwegian Bar Association's Disciplinary Committee does not accept any complaints sent by e-mail.

Med vennlig hilsen Inger-Johanne Hammer sekretĂŚr / Secretary ADVOKATFORENINGEN / THE NORWEGIAN BAR ASSOCIATION Kristian Augusts gate 9, N-0164 Oslo T + 47 22 03 50 50 E ijh@advokatforeningen.no www.advokatforeningen.no www.advokatenhjelperdeg.no

Fra: Andrea [mailto:andreamuhrrteyn@mweb.co.za] Sendt: 20. juni 2012 14:34 Til: Inger Johanne Hammer; Baard Amundsen Kopi: Advokatforeningen Emne: Den Norske Advokatforening: Berit Reiss-Andersen: Req for Env. & Health Info ITO S.28 and S.10 Chairperson: Berit Reiss-Andersen Sec./Exec. Officer: Inger-Johanna Hammer 02/07/12 NorsK AdvFor: DiscComm: Legal Interest norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

Comm: Baard Amundsen The Norwegian Bar Association | Den Norske Advokatforening Juristenes Hus Kristian Augusts gate 9, 0164 Oslo Tel: 22 03 50 50 | Fax: 22 11 53 25 E: ijh@advokatforeningen.no, ba@advokatforeningen.no CC: Disciplinary Complaints The Norwegian Bar Association | Den Norske Advokatforening Juristenes Hus Kristian Augusts gate 9, 0164 Oslo Tel: 22 03 50 50 | Fax: 22 11 53 25 Email: Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints (post@advokatforeningen.no) Dear Ms. Reiss-Andersen, Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Complaints filed against Attorneys for Defendant (4) and Victims Families (166) in Norway v.

Breivik matter: Violation of: 2.1 (Independence), 2.2 (Honesty), 2.4 (Multiculti Legal Respect) & 4,1 (Rule of Law Conduct) of CCBE Code of Ethics (Norwegian translation) : Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial, to (1) deny Defendant his Political Necessity Treason Trial; and (2) support Corruption of the Court to deny submittal to the Court of Controversial Evidence related to: [1] Media's Environment-PopulationTerrorism Connection; [2] Norway's endorsement of Political Psychiatry & Psychiatric Fraud; [3] Masculine Insecurity Human Farming for Profit Kaffir Legal Matrix; [4] Norwegian Goverments Endorsement for ANC's Terrorism & Breeding War; [5] Norwegian Commitment to Rainbow Race Multiculturism is a Fraud Thank you for the email from the Norwegian Bar Association's Disciplinary Committee, dated Tue 6/19/2012 10:16 AM; in response to the 170 complaints I filed against Attorney's for Defendant (4) and Victims Families (166) in Norway v. Breivik matter. In response, I request the following information: Request for Information: [1] List of Attorney's I filed complaint against who are not members of the Bar Association, whose complaints cannot be handled by the Disciplinary Committee and require referral to the Disciplinary Board.

[2] The Bar Association 'Legal Interest' Decision Making Justifications: [A] Does the Bar Association endorse the European Court of Human Rights (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom) principle that every individual who files a legal application to a Norwegian Court has a right to a timeous and precise written response informing them whether their application has been accepted, or if denied, reasons for such denial, or to inform the individual of additional information required before the complaint can be accepted?

[B] If so, if or when any Judge refuses to provide any applicant in any court proceeding that any Norwegian Lawyer is a participant in, with such prompt written response, it is the duty of honourable and ethical Lawyers to uphold the respect for impartial court due process proceedings to object to, and expose such discrimatory corrupt practices being practiced by a Norwegian Magistrate or Judge?

[C] In consideration for [A] and [B], could the Bar Association be detailed specific about how and why it alleges that my complaints do not meet the Bar Association's 'legal interest requirement'?

[D] Is the Bar Association's 'Legal Interest' Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of the HumanFarming-EcoSuicide-Kaffir-Legal-Matrix?: Whether the Bar Association's decision-making to allege that my complaint did not meet the 'Bar Association's 'legal interest requirement' had anything to do with silencing, suppressing or obstructing my legal applications to the court in this matter expoing the Human Farming Kaffir Legal Matrix: the Iron Mountain 'War is a Racket Military Industrial Complex's centralisation of power and tyranny , founded on Kaffir Law/Legislation which provides citizens with the Inalienable Eco-Suicide '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, a Marxist/Capitalist Traitor Hunting licence, etc, etc.

[D] Is the Bar Association's 'Legal Interest' Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of Norway's endorsement of the Legal Establishment's use of Whores of the Court Psychiatrists for the purposes of White Supremacy cultural supremacy and social control; ignoring the reality their 'Whores of the Court' Bullshit the public 02/07/12 NorsK AdvFor: DiscComm: Legal Interest norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

and the court with "psychobabble with scientific foundations equal to horoscope charts. the science behind it all is nonexistent"?

[3] The Bar Association Environmental Principles Decision-Making [1] Please provide The Bar Association Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for demanding complainants waste paper, ink and non-renewable transporation resources by printing, signing and mailing complaints to the Bar Association; and refusing digitally signed complaints submitted by email, which are much more beneficial to the environment, and are exact environmentally digital copies of print versions?

[2] Please provide The Bar Association Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for printed complaints; when even third world goverments and Bar Associations environmental policies allow courts and organisations to accept email complaints?

ECHR: Rule of law requires adequately Precise and Accessible Legislation: In Lithgow & others v United Kingdom , 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)." [..]

Conclusion: If an individual files a legal application to a Norwegian Court; does the Bar Association support the due process principles; that 1. such an individual has a right to a prompt and clear written response from the Court informing the applicant their legal application has been accepted or if not, whether further information is required or what is required from the individual for such legal application to be accepted 2.

When any legal applicant is denied such due process written response by the court; it is the honourable duty of all legal parties involved in the matter to uphold the respect for due process and the law, by demanding the Judge provide the applicant with a clear and written response to their application.

We live on a finite resource planet and not even Bar Associations have the right to believe that resources are infinite and to demand 'complaints' procedures that require complainants to waste scarce resources, when alternative procedures exist that are more environmentally resource friendly.

Full complaint in attached PDF Respectfully Submitted Lara Johnstone Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/

From: Advokatforeningen [mailto:post@advokatforeningen.no] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:16 AM To: Lara Subject: RE: Adv.For: Klage:

02/07/12 NorsK AdvFor: DiscComm: Legal Interest norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

Dear Ms Lara Johnstone, The Norwegian Bar Association's Disciplinary Committee has received your complaints concerning numerous lawyers participating in the case against Anders Behring Breivik. Complaints concerning a lawyer's possible breach of the Code of conduct for lawyers can be brought before the Disciplinary Committee as long as the lawyer is a member of the Norwegian Bar Association. If the lawyer is not a member, the complaint must be addressed to the Disciplinary Board.

The Disciplinary Committee's handling of complaints is regulated by The Norwegian Bar Association's bylaws ยง 13-1, cf. the Disciplinary Committee's processing regulations.

We would like to point out that anyone whose complaint is based on a legal interest is entitled to file a complaint. In practice this means that the attorney's client has a right to complain. Complaints regarding the other party's attorney may also be filed. It is thus primarily the parties involved in a case that can file a complaint against a lawyer, as the complainant must have a direct connection to the circumstances that the complaint is built on. If the complainant has no such legal interest, the complaint will be rejected. A complaint may also be rejected if it is obviously baseless.

Based on the information received in your complaints, it seems like these are not in compliance with the legal interest- requirement.

Should you nevertheless uphold your complaints, please be aware that all complaints must be submitted in writing and signed, and send us as two originals by ordinary mail. We would like to emphasize the importance of sending your complaints by ordinary mail due to the fact that the Norwegian Bar Association does not accept any complaints sent by e-mail.

The following items should be included in the complaint: 1. Name and address of the attorney who is the subject of the complaint.

2. Indicate the date you became aware of the matter(s) that is/are the subject of the complaint.

3. Write why you believe the attorney has violated the rules of proper conduct and/or why you believe the demanded fee is too high. Provide a brief presentation of the factual circumstances. It is important, to the extent you can, that you provide dates for all events.

4. Enclose copies of letters and other documents that you believe are relevant to the complaint.

5. Complete an attorney complaint form with declaration of consent to the processing and handling of personal data.

The Norwegian Bar Association cannot process the complaint without a completed and signed attorney complaint form. Documents received without the complaint form attached will be returned to the complainant.

Please send two copies of the signed written complaint enclosed with any documentation you find relevant, in duplicate, and a filled-out and signed consent form in original to: Advokatforeningen Kristian Augustsgt. 9 NO-0164 Oslo Label the envelope "Disciplinary Complaint".

Kind regards The Norwegian Bar Association

02/07/12 NorsK AdvFor: DiscComm: Legal Interest norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr