Summary of Official State Responses to EoP Leg Sub: .
Many EoP Legal Submissions to international and/or national courts, have been ignored by clerks of the court and/or the judges; with no response. Where clerks accepted EoP applications to their courts:
None of the Magistrates and/or Judges who accepted EoP Legal Submissions applications and/or evidence into the court proceedings, they presided over, have made any written legal ruling, proving any EoP legal evidence submitted to the court proceedings they presided over, to be evidentiary deficient or inaccurate. I imagine, their lack of an EoP or partial EoP legal written order finding, has been the result of all the other parties in the cases, and/or their lawyers, refusal to even discuss, let alone, investigate the EoP evidence submitted into the court proceedings, to determine its legal certainty or plausible legal working hypothesis enquiry accuracy or not.
[..] EoP MILED Clerk and EoP Applicants preferences – aka what do we want – are available at Eco & Ego Literacy.
» EoP Leg Sub: 24 Jul: Intl Comm Jurists, Bar Assoc’s: Transparency Notice: EoP App’s Re: Lack of Credibility of WiP Legal Services Cult Law
Below are summaries of some of the State Legislative, Juridical & Military Officials who did respond to EoP formal official EoP Legal Submissions to State courts, arbitration bodies, Officials [subject to updates as per under construction notice]:
Under Construction Notice:
SQSwans [archive.is/DPDrV] and Tygae [archive.is/PS3Fx] Ecology of Peace websites on Weebly were hacked and deleted by the hacker; on 24 Oct 2016. EoP correspondence to San Francisco District Attorney, Police, Weebly et al; regarding Hacking of Weebly sites is available at: EoP Legal Submissions: LJ v Weebly Hackers.
EoP Submission Accepted for Filing into Court Record: Judge refused Juridical Evidentiary Enquiry &/or Ruling
Clerks/Registrars who accepted EoP evidence into their court record administrative access to courts; and/or juridical evidentiary enquiry deliberations; overruled by Judges:
Clerk/Registrar accepted EoP application into the court record they administratively clerked on, for juridical arbitration. The Judge/s – perhaps as a result of ego and/or ecological illiteracy [EoP Definition of Ego/Eco Literacy] – refused to allow the application to be submitted into court record proceedings, for official ruling response from the other parties, to enable court to make impartial truth-seeking evidentiary enquiry into EoP v WiP issues in dispute.
→ EU: EU Court of Human Rights: Judge Krzysztof Wojtyczek: Case 16325/13: LJ v Norway.
→ EU: Aarhus Conv Comp Comm: Secretariat: ACCC/C/2013/82: LJ v Norway.
Clerk/Registrar accepted EoP application into the court record they administratively clerked on, for juridical arbitration. The Judge/s – perhaps as a result of ego and/or ecological illiteracy [EoP Definition of Ego/Eco Literacy] – refused to allow the application to be submitted into court record proceedings, for official ruling response from the judges, and/or other parties, to enable court to make impartial truth-seeking evidentiary enquiry into EoP v WiP issues in dispute.
→ US: US Court of Appeals for Armed Forces: Judges: Case # 12-8027/AR: CCR v US.
EoP Submission Accepted for Filing into Court Record: No EoP or Partial EoP Legal Finding; however No finding disproving any EoP Evidence:
Clerks and Magistrates, Judges and/or Justices who have accepted EoP evidence into the court record they presided over, in resource conflict dispute’s they arbitrated:
Clerk/Registrar accepted EoP application into the court record they administratively clerked on, for juridical arbitration. During subsequent court proceedings: Magistrates, Judges and/or Justices accepted EoP evidence into the official court record they presided over, in the resource conflict dispute’s they arbitrated. The EoP submissions evidence was ignored by other applicant/respondent parties, and/or their lawyers, in the court proceedings. The Juridical Final written ruling made no EoP or partial EoP written legal finding; and also made no written legal finding disproving any EoP evidence submitted into the court record:
→ ZA: SA Constitutional Court: Chief Justice: CCT 23-10: The Citizen v Robert McBride.
→ ZA: Gauteng Equality Court: Judge Lamont: 07-2010 EQ JHB: Afriforum & TAU v Julius Malema & ANC.
→ ZA: Magistrates Court: George: Clerk of Civil Court: All cases.
EoP or Partial EoP Legal Law/Ruling:
EoP or Partial EoP Legal Finding / Ruling:
Legislators accepted EoP evidence into the legislative law policy writing they presided over, in resource conflict dispute’s they legislatively arbitrated; whose finding can be reasonably interpreted as a partial EoP finding:
→ USA: NC Senators and Rep’s: Bill 774: Turtle Island.
State Arbitration Org accepted EoP evidence into dispute they presided over, and gave what could be interpreted as an EoP culture right of access to courts finding / ruling:
→ ZA: Gender Commission: Re: Complaint to GE/CRL Rights Re: EoP Leg Sub: APD v Afriforum & Malema et al.
Military Intelligence Org’ Monitoring/Interested in EoP v WiP Neg Issues:
Military Intelligence Organizations who have officially responded to EoP v WiP correspondence, whose official written correspondence could be reasonably interpreted as indicating to EoP v WiP Neg parties; their plausible deniable public confirmation of observation and monitoring interest in the issues being negotiated.
→ RU: Russian Federal Security Service: FSB: AM Kalganov: EoP FSB.
Summary Conclusion: EoP Win-Win vs WiP Lose-Lose
In the short term one lawyer or general and their legal or military cannon fodder clients may win; and another side lose a particular legal case or military, political or publishing battle. In the long term, in any eco/ego-logically illiterate WiP religious or secular resource conflict dispute resolution system, (a) unless the legal system is exposed – like Martin Luther partially exposed the Catholic Church for its ‘Innocence for Sale’ Indulgences; or Sayyid Qutb partially exposed Islam for its equivalent ‘Innocence for Sale’ indulgences corruption; etc – as having no sincere concern for providing an honest, impartial juridical process for resolving resource conflict disputes for all citizens, and the system is cooperatively reformed into an eco-ego logically literate [ego-eco-literacy.tygae.org.za] win-win resource conflict resolution system; (b) everyone loses: lawyers, judges, prosecutors, police and citizens, when the state secular or religious resource conflict dispute system collapses usually as a result of the Nation State collapsing. Ecological Overshoot and internal conflict due to Economic Inequality Stratification cause Nation states to collapse [mg-nasa.tygae.org.za]. Ecological Overshoot and Economic Inequality are a direct and indirect result of eco and ego-logically illiterate citizen education from the media, their subsequent voting, legislating, lawyer-ing and juridical arbitrating.
» EoP Leg Sub: 26 Jul: EoP v US DoJSC: EoP WinWin v WiP BangBang, William Colby, Vietnam War, John F Kennedy & Oliver Stone.
EoP Leg Sub Official State Responses correspondence.
Last Updated: 04 Aug 2017; 20 Aug 2019.