Notice to 330 NO Political Party Officials: NO v. Breivik: Oppose Norway's Political Psychiatric Stalinesque Tyranny
Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 07 December 2001

[Political Party] Members,
For Your Information:
In the matter between: KINGDOM OF NORWAY v. ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK
An Application has been filed in terms of Article’s 2, 4, 85, 100, 110a, 110b, of Norwegian Constitution; and Article’s 1, 5, 6, 9, 13 and 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The application requests Judge Nina Opsahl to issue an order that (A) Anders Breivik be requested to provide his approval to the court to issue the following writs on his behalf:
[I] A writ of Habeus Mentem on behalf of Anders Breivik psycho-cultural 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.
The writ of Habeus Mentem – the right of a wo/man to their own mind and culture – and writ of Review (of the Psychiatric Report) are invoked specifically against Anders Breivik’s attorney: Geir Lippestad, and Psychiatrists Synne Serheim and Torgeir Husby; and indirectly against the Norwegian multi-culti liberal political, legal, academic and media establishment who appear to be deliberately and perhaps maliciously attempting to deny Anders Breivik a free and fair trial, by means of a fraudulent and politically motivated ‘political psychiatry’ ‘insanity’ report and public media statements, so as to deny Mr. Breivik his day in court.
Article posted at:
Oslo District Court: Norway v. Breivik: Judge Nina Opsahl: Application for Writ of Habeus Mentem & Certiorari/Review
http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2011/12/oslo-district-court-norway-v-breivik.html
Respectfully,
Lara Johnstone
http://fleur-de-lis.co.nr
Lara (Clann/Tribe Name: Johnstone)
I (Sovereign or alleged Corporate identity) do not endorse any contract which does not fulfill the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract, namely: (1) Full Disclosure; (2) Equal Consideration; (3) Lawful Clear and Concise Terms and Conditions simply explained; and (4) Signatures of both/all Parties (In accordance to Common Law, I also consider corporations to be without legal standing, as they have no mind, body, legs, eyes, emotions; and hence are legal fictions). As a member of Radical Honesty culture I always endorse the resolution of all disagreements and/or misunderstandings in accordance to Radical Honesty cultural practices (See: Practicing Radical Honesty, by Brad Blanton), or via independent arbitration that does not involve bloodsucking parasite lawyers; and am willing to consider the practices of other cultures, who seriously and sincerely consider mine.




