TILSYNSUTV ALGETFOR DOMMERE

Likelydende brev til:

Ms Lara JohnstoneAmicus Curiae16 Taaibos Ave

HeatherparkGeorge 6529South Africa

imcswan@mweb.co.za

Tingrettsdommer Wenche Elisabeth ArntzenOslo tingrettPostboks 8023 Dep.0030 OSLO

Deres ref: Var ref:201200623-6/228- TU

Juridisk saksbehandler: Espen Eiken

Data:23.10.2012

SAK 72/12: KLAGE PA TINGRETTSDOMMER WENCHE ELISABETHARNTZEN 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 sakenkan bringe utvalgets vedtak inn for domstolen ved s0ksmal. S0ksmalsfristen er to manederetter at partene ble underrettet om vedtaket. Det vises n<:ermeretil domstolloven § 239.

Vedtaket er offentlig, j f. offentleglova § 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 saksbehandlingssystem oghar derfor ingen signatur.

Sekretariatet forTilsynsutvalgetfor dam mere

Pastadresse Besoksadresse Telefon Telefaks E-pastDamstaladministrasjonen Dronningensgt.2 73 567000 73567001 tilsynsutvalget@domstol.noPostbaks 5678 Sluppen7485 Trondheim

TILSYNSUTV ALGET

FOR DOMMERE

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

Sak nr:

Saken gjelder:

Utvalgsmedlem:

Offentlighet:

Vedtak:

72/12 (arkivnr: 201200623-5)

Klage fra Lara Johnstone pa tingrettsdommer WencheElisabeth Arntzen ved Oslo tingrett

Bj0rn HUbert Senum (vara), etter fullmakt

Vedtaket er offentlig, j f. offentleglova § 3.

Det er ikke grunnlag for disiplinrertiltak mottingrettsdommer Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen. Klagen erapenbart ubegrunnet.

Sekretariatet for

Tilsynsutvalgetfor dommere

Postadresse Beseksadresse Telefon Telefaks E-postDomstoladministrasjonen Dronningensgt.2 73567000 73 567001 tilsynsutvalget@domstol.noPostboks 5678 Sluppen7485 Trondheim

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

2

Innledning:

Lara Johnstone har den 6. juni 2012 inngitt klage pa tingrettsdommer Wenche ElisabethArntzen 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 tilutvalgets leder, nestleder og advokatmedlem a avgj0re klager som er apenbart ubegrunnet.Klagen behandles etter dette av utvalgets vara-advokatmedlem i henhold til nevntefullmakt.

Tilsynsutvalget for dommere ser slik pa saken:

Tilsynsutvalget for dommere kan treffe vedtak om disiplineertiltak dersom en dommerforsettlig eller uaktsomt overtrer de plikter som stillingen medf0rer, eller for 0vrig opptrer istrid med god dommerskikk, jf. domstolloven § 236 f0fste ledd.

Klagen er omfangsrik og knytter seg til 22. juli-saken, som ble avviklet ved Oslo tingrettvaren og sommeren 2012. Klager har for 0vrig ikke veert en akt0r i rettssaken eller paannen mate veert direkte involvert i saken. Det er derfor tvilsomt om klager overhodet harklagerett. Etter utvalgets mening gir klagen f0rst og fremst uttrykk for klagers generellesynspunkter pa det norske rettssystemet og det norske politiske systemet. Det fremgar avklagedokumentene at Johnstone representerer en politisk-kulturell bevegelse (RadicalHonoursty EcoFeminist). Det er ingen holdepunkter i klagen for a si at tingrettsdommerWenche 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 ALGETFOR 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 oguthevinger bUr ikke registrert.)

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

D

1.

2.

Klage pa dommer( e) i tingrett Ilagmannsrett I H0yesterett (dealminnelige domstolene)Klage pa dommer( e) i jordskifteretten I jordskifteoverrettenGordskiftedomstolene)

2. Hva er dommerens fulle navn, og hva heter domstolen hvor dommeren arbeider?

~ Iv 4 ;jfa'VennIi st an i:g g 'tHCiI£ ~;lA-?~1JI ' f'/7;Z&Y {}JO 751' a£(

/..

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

HI 1.Part i saken

2.Prosessfullmektig (velg det som passer nedenfor i alt. 2.1-2.4)

D2.1.Advokat

D2.2.Aktor

D2.3.Forsvarer

~2.4.Andre

0 3.Prosessfullmektigipart (begge er klagere)wt

4.Fornrermet i straffesak

0 5.Vitne i saken

~6.Sakkyndig i saken

D7.Depm1ementet

D8.Domstoladministrasjonen

D9.Domstolleder

D10.Advokatforeningen

M11.Media

D12.Lekdommer I meddommer

13.

TILSYNSUTV ALGETFOR DOMMERE

Annen tilknytning til saken og 'Yf aktuelle dommerVennligst forklar: kR/J !fJ.£r/ ) :£:;VIJcL

!l-IflILU<; t:bAc !£/bt/J ~ 71¥

~ /JpjJIJc/lHI

4. Angi kort hvilket (evt. hvilke) forhold du mener dommeren har begatt som er i strid medreglene om god dommerskikk. Trenger vi utfYllende informasjon om forholdet, herunderoversendelse 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 /ii4c£.~ X/Jt£ WblU/£ 1!&.~5Y~. I

5- 7. /~' f

TILSYNSUTV ALGETFOR DOMMERE

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

6. Nar skjedde det aktuelle forholdet som klagen bygger pa? Tidfest forholdet sa n0yaktigsom 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 1ar 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 for dommere, Domstoladministrasjonen, Postboks 5678 Sluppen, 7485Trondheim.

Benytt alternativt telefaks nr. 73567001.

kR/7 L~~Klagers navo(Bruk blokkbokstaver)

Klagers adresse(Bruk blokkbokstaver)

'\/

Sted og dato Underskrift

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

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) non-

violent 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). 5 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

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 http://www.domstol.no/no/Enkelt-domstol/-Norges-Hoyesterett/ 11 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 war19.

(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 17 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 pre-Islamic 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.

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 Anti-

Apartheid 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 Anti-

Apartheid Movement‟s „Operation Production‟ Breeding War:

[59-75] Masculine Insecurity Liberal Europe‟s Endorsement of African Masculine Insecurity Anti-

Apartheid 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 pre-Islamic 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.