10 Jul: Re: K Wojtyczek Ruling in ECHR: 16425/13: LJ v Norway; Re: Norway v Breivik.

* ECHR Judge Krzysztof Wojtyczek .. David Anderson QC
* Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Jagiellonian University Constitutional Law Faculty, Katedra Prawa Konstytucyjnego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Monika Florczak-Wator, European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, Thorbjorn Jagland, Daniel Holtgen, Norway Supreme Court, Chief Justice Tore Schei, Oslo District Court, Wenche Arntzen, Svein Holden, NO Ministry of Justice, 22 July Oslo & Utoya Victims Families, Siv Hallgren, Mette Yvonne Larsen, Frode Elgesem, Anders Breivik, Geir Lippestad, Oystein Storrvik, Storrvik Attorneys, COE Spokesperson, ECHR Lawyers, EU ECHR Law, Jerzy Buzek, David Anderson QC
* 10 Jul: Re: K Wojtyczek Ruling in ECHR: 16425/13: LJ v Norway; Re: Norway v Breivik.
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub: LJ v Norway; NO v Breivik / EoP NWO SCO: EoP Axis MilNec Evac: Lotto: EoP v WiP Law, EoP v WiP Academia, EoP v WiP Religion, EoP v WiP Psych / EoP v WiP NWO Neg.

From: EoP MILED Clerk <eop.miled.clerk@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: K Wojtyczek Ruling in ECHR: 16425/13: LJ v Norway; Re: Norway v Breivik.
To: Krzysztof Wojtyczek <k.wojtyczek@uj.edu.pl>
Cc: Monika Florczak-Wator <m.florczak-wator@uj.edu.pl>, “Council of Europe: Information Point” <infopoint@coe.int>, “Supreme Court: Chief Justice Tore Schei” <postmottak@domstoladministrasjonen.no>, “Oslo District Court: Wenche Arntzen” <oslo.tinghus.sentralbord@domstol.no>, NO Ministry of Justice <postmottak@jd.dep.no>, Siv Hallgren <siv.hallgren@elden.no>, Mette Yvonne Larsen <mette.larsen@advokatstabell.no>, Frode Elgesem <elg@thommessen.no>, Geir Lippestad <geir@advokatlippestad.no>, Oystein Storrvik <storrvik@storrvik.no>, Storrvik Attorneys <advokatfirmaet@storrvik.no>

Krzysztof Wojtyczek (k.wojtyczek@uj.edu.pl)
Department of Constitutional Law
at the Jagiellonian University
CC: Katedra Prawa Konstytucyjnego
CC: European Court of Human Rights
CC: Norway v Anders Breivik.

Katedra Prawa Konstytucyjnego
Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego
31-005 Kraków, ul.Bracka 12
Siedziba Katedry Prawa Konstytucyjnego znajduje się
na I piętrze w pokoju nr 105.
Monika Florczak-Wator (m.florczak-wator@uj.edu.pl)

European Court of Human Rights
Council of Europe
67075 Strasbourg CEDEX, France
via Council of Europe: Information Point (infopoint@coe.int); Secretary General: Thorbjorn Jagland: Spokesperson: Daniel Holtgen: @CoESpokesperson

Norway v Anders Breivik:
Judges: Norway v Oslo: Supreme Court: Chief Justice Tore Schei (postmottak@domstoladministrasjonen.no); Oslo District Court: Wenche Arntzen(oslo.tinghus.sentralbord@domstol.no); Prosecutor Svein Holden c/o & via: Ministry of Justice  (postmottak@jd.dep.no); 22 July Victims Families via Siv Hallgren (siv.hallgren@elden.no); Mette Yvonne Larsen (mette.larsen@advokatstabell.no); Frode Elgesem (elg@thommessen.no); Anders Breivik via Counsel: Geir Lippestad (geir@advokatlippestad.no); Oystein Storrvik (storrvik@storrvik.no); Storrvik Attorneys (advokatfirmaet@storrvik.no).

Prof Wojtyczek:

Re: K Wojtyczek Ruling in ECHR: 16425/13: LJ v Norway; Re: Norway v Breivik.

This is a very brief summary transparency notice update related to Ecology of Peace vs Masonic War is Peace New World Order Negotiations [subsequently referred to as “EoP v WiP NWO Neg”] ‘The Only Operative Question: Whom the Military Should Kill’ issue in dispute filed by the EoP MILED Clerk to the European Court of Human Rights in Case 16425/13: Johnstone v Norway; regarding your ruling [PDF] to the EoP application for review of the irregularities and illegalities in Norway v Breivik.

EoP Legal Submissions: Official State Responses:

EoP Legal Submissions Official State Responses includes the following summary related to the juridical decision making of Judge Krzysztof Wojtyczek in ECHR Case 16325/13: LJ v Norway.

Clerk/Registrar’s who accepted EoP applications, into the court record they administratively clerked on. Judge – perhaps as a result of ego and/or ecological illiteracy [EoP Definition of Ego/Eco Literacy] – refused to make impartial truth-seeking evidentiary enquiry.
→ EU: EU Court of Human Rights: Judge Krzysztof Wojtyczek: Case 16325/13: LJ v Norway.

If that summary interpretation of your reasons for refusing to make an impartial truth-seeking evidentiary enquiry into the issues in dispute; is partially or entirely inaccurate; kindly let me know how or why it is inaccurate, and I shall be happy to make an impartial enquiry into your evidence; and amend the aforementioned summary interpretation, and/or apologize in writing as appropriate.

EoP v WiP NWO Negotiations: Summary: Whom Should the Military Kill?

[A] Shut Down WiP Ponzi Profiteering of Resource Conflict Misery Economy:

Generally speaking, all EoP Legal Submission cases, involve EoP scientific and cultural law evidentiary recommendations to shut down the WiP Ponzi profiteering of resource conflict and misery economy, by ‘turning off the tap’ — i.e. the breeding / consumption above ecological carrying capacity limitscauses of resource conflict and war; by implementing an Ecology of Peace New World Order Social Contract that requires a) requires all citizens of all races, religions, nations, to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; or be humanely eliminated from the planetary genepool; (b) nationalizes all property and provides all responsible freedom oath citizens a property ration to enable their shelter and survival self-sufficiency to enable the rebuilding of a relocalized sustainable future.

[B] Strategic and Tactical Discussion: Whom Should the Military Kill:
One of the EoP v WiP NWO Military Negotiations strategic and tactical topics of discussion is: The Operative Question for Military Commanders: Whom Should the Military Kill?

The ‘Whom Should the Military Kill’ military strategic and tactical discussions – following on from EoP US Army Ft Bragg – are different and similar; to the Nazi Party’s Wannsee Conference, chaired by Reinhard Tristan Eugen Heydrich, held in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee on 20 January 1942, the purpose of which was to clearly legally define ‘Who is and is not a Jew’, in order to formalize plans for the Final Solution to the Jewish Question—the deportation and genocide of all Jews in German-occupied Europe.

Similarities: To provide EoP Axis military officials with a clear legal definition of an Eco Innocent and Scarcity Combatant – whether Jew, European, African, American, South African, Christian, Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist, communist, capitalist, nationalist, liberal, conservative, lawyer, judge, psychologist, farmer, janitor, teacher, or unemployed — so that their soldiers, or any civilians they conscript into militia’s; are clear – if or when they consider EoP Axis Military Necessity Evacuation or some similar form of ‘Military Final Solution’ necessary; for example: if EoP Legal Truth and Reconciliation Commission Legal/Military Tribunals – as suggested in Citizen v R McBride and EoP v Nobel are obstructed or fail – as to whom should not be killed and whom should be killed.

Differences: (i) EoP culture’s Final Solution to the Scarcity Combatant Question EoP v WiP negotiations are public, published and available online. They are available in the court record – for example: SA Constitutional Court: The Citizen v Robert McBride – where the Judges and/or any other party consented to them being submitted for consideration to the issues in dispute in the proceedings. They are consequently publicly available to any individual of any race, religion or culture, whom has been informed of their existence, for them to read and incorporate into their personal and/or relating values; to discuss and share the information with their family or community; and/or if sincere about non-violent resolution to resource conflict; to do whatever they can to cooperate; to implement an EoP Intnl law social contract. The Nazi party’s Final Solution to the Jewish Question negotiations were private and secret; not even Jewish and European Germans were aware of them until many years after WWII.  (ii) EoP culture’s negotiations – and EoP scientific and cultural law Truth and Reconciliation Military Tribunal recommendations regarding whom should be killed, how, by whom and when – are based upon scientific ecological carrying capacity principles; and submitted to Scarcity Combatant Respondents as part of legal proceedings, to inform them of the Scarcity Combatant War Criminal charges against them; and how and what they can do to take responsibility and make amends for their former breeding/consumption war scarcity combatant lifestyles. The Nazi Party’s ‘Final Solution to the Jewish Question’ Negotiations recommendations were based upon racial Aryan supremacist ideology.

“In order to conserve fuel, expand capacity and improve supply, certain measures were taken; [to be able to provide Commanders with the opportunity to have required resources available to change course, with speed, if or when so required, or circumstances provided such an opportunity]. First it was a court martial offence to waste fuel. …” – Military History Visualized: General Mattis’ Way of War (2001 – 2003).
» IG: 17-07-08_mattiscrashcourse-fenwayparkexpgrowth.

**

“Mattis stated in an interview with the author of the Mattis Way of War case study that if he could outfight the enemy commander; he wouldn’t have to fight his troops.” – Military History Visualized: General Mattis’ Way of War (2001 – 2003).

In the context of outfighting the enemy commander, which is – if you are an honourable warrior – always to find a win-win just solution to the resource conflict dispute you are engaged in: I don’t think it matters if the General or Admiral in charge of the troops has a vagina [Russian Resurrection: Battalion; The Great War: Russia’s New Offensive – The Russian Women’s Battalion of Death; Battle of the Camel: Mohammeds Wife Aisha] or a penis, or both or none, if the General or Admiral’s ego’s are capable of confronting Ecology of Peace Radical Honoursty Factual Reality principles.

In that context, the only operative question for such military commander’s honourable discussion, between themselves and with their troops; is: Whom should the military kill?

The EoP Scientific & Cultural Law EoP TRC [Truth & Reconciliation] Answer is:

As part of a Legal Military Truth and Reconciliation Tribunal Process – ex: EoP v Nobel – Give the Breeding / Consumption Scarcity Combatants – of all races, religions and classes – the opportunity to take personal responsibility for their former Breeding/Consumption above Ecological Carrying Capacity limits transgressions; by cooperating to implement an EoP intn’l law social contract; that (a) requires all citizens of all races, religions, nations, to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; or be humanely eliminated from the planetary genepool; (b) nationalizes all property and provides all responsible freedom oath citizens a property ration to enable their shelter and survival self-sufficiency to enable the rebuilding of a relocalized sustainable future.
» IG: 17-06-12_nyt-climatedealneedsbigstick-2.
» EoP v WiP NWO Neg: 29 Jun: Martin van Creveld; 07 Jul: Ron Jager: EoP Re: Patching it Up with Putin; Liberal Jews to Israel: Do It Our Way or Else.

EoP MILED Clerk, on behalf of EoP Applicants has no problem amending the EoP Scientific & Cultural Law EoP TRC [Truth & Reconciliation] Answer to the Military Ethics question; if or when provided with written reasons evidence that exposes any ethical errors of logic or reason in the EoP SciCult Law TRC concept as a whole, or any of the eco and/or ego literacy principles it is founded upon.

A transcript of all EoP v WiP NWO Negotiations correspondence regarding the Revolution of Military Ethics: Whom Should the Military Kill Question; can be found at EoP FT Bragg: Military Ethics Question.

A copy of this correspondence shall be documented at EoP Legal Submissions and EoP v WiP NWO Negotiations.

Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone, aka Andrea Muhrrteyn
PO Box 5042, George East, 6539, RSA
GMC 4643-13 & 2578-14 Pro Se Applicant
Former MILED Clerk & Acting Clerk

.

Notices via Twitter:

COE Spokesperson: @CoESpokesperson; Council of Europe: @coe; ECHR Lawyers: @echr_lawyers; EU ECHR Law: @EUECHR; Jerzy Buzek: @JerzyBuzek; David Anderson QC @bricksilk

EoP MILED Clerk: 10 Jul 2017: 18:33 hrs: @CoESpokesperson EoP corr 4 @coe at http://eop-leg-sub.tygae.org.za/2017/07/10-jul-re-k-wojtyczek/ @echr_lawyers @EUECHR @JerzyBuzek Luv Earth EoP Ftpt Info @bricksilk https://youtu.be/qV5SIFBmfaM [Silverio Ortiz: Invictus: Springboks Brick of Green and Goldpic.twitter.com/7RzJjfIfsC [IG: 17-06-02_eoptrc-citizenv-mcbride]

.