Official State Responses

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 with no response. Here are summaries of 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: Judged denied 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...